Reading theories and reading comprehension

Abstract

p>In this article several reading theories in their relations to reading comprehension teachers and lecturers of English need to know are reviewed. At the theory level, three other Models of Reading, namely Bottom-Up, Top-Down, and Interactive are previously discussed to the Schema Theory. In reviewing the reading comprehension, the history of reading instruction, types and purposes of reading, and cognitive reading skills are discussed. Finally, it reviews six variables involved in the comprehension of English texts.

Keywords: m odels of r eading, schema theory, comprehension , background knowledge </p

Full text

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 25
READING THEORIES AND READING COMPREHENSION
Maria Novary Ngabut
Universitas Palangkaraya
mary.ngabut@gmail.com
Abstract: In this article several reading theories in their relations to reading
comprehension teachers and lecturers of English need to know are reviewed. At the
theory level, three other Models of Reading, namely Bottom-Up, Top-Down, and
Interactive are previously discussed to the Schema Theory. In reviewing the reading
comprehension, the history of reading instruction, types and purposes of reading,
and cognitive reading skills are discussed. Finally, it reviews six variables involved in
the comprehension of English texts.
Keywords: models of reading, schema theory, comprehension, background knowledge
This article is a review of reading theories
and reading comprehension discussed in a
wide range of books, journals, articles, and
the like. Here four main topics are
reviewed, namely (i) the nature of
reading, (ii) schema theory, (iii) reading
comprehension, and (iv) the variables
involved in comprehension.
NATURE OF READING
Reading is an extremely complex
process that no one can explain
satisfactorily. Those who are interested in
reading have their fundamental diverse
views which resul from two different
schools of psychology: behaviourism and
cognitivism. In relation to these, most
models of reading are partial in that they
are concerned with specific aspects (for
example, perceptual or cognitive), stages
(beginning or skilled reading), or modes
(oral or silent reading). They do not
attempt to account for all aspects of the
reading process. There has been no single
model that can be called the most
acceptable.
The models can be placed in one of
the three categories: bottom-up, top-
down, and interactive (Harris & Sipay,
1984:6). A discussion of the three models
now follows.
Bottom-up Models
Bottom-up models ot the reading
process view reading as basically a
translating, decoding, or encoding process.
Here the reader starts with letters or larger
units, and as he attends to them he begins
to anticipate the words they spell. When
the words are identified, they are decoded
to inner speech from which the reader
derives meaning in the same way as
listening. In this process reading
comprehension is believed to be an
automatic outcome of accurate word
recognition.
The followers of these models have
argued that reading is essentially the
translation of graphic symbols into an
approximation of oral language. These
models are influenced by behaviourist
psychology and thus structural linguistics

26 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015
in which they are mostly appropriate for
beginning readers.
Top-down Models
In top-down models of reading, the
reader’s cognitive and language
competence plays a key role in the
construction of meaning from printed
materials. Most of these models
(Goodman, 1967; Smith, 1971) are based
on psycholinguistic theory, that is, the
theory in which there is an interaction
between thought and language. Goodman
(1967) defines reading as a process which
involves using available language cues
that are selected from perceptual input on
the basis of reader’s predictions. As the
information is processed, tentative
decisions about meaning are confirmed,
rejected, or refined as the reading
progresses. Graphic information in the
top-down models is used only to support
or reject hypotheses about meaning.
Meaning, in this case
comprehension, according to these models
is obtained by using only as much
information as necessary from the graphic,
syntactic, and semantic cue systems. Other
cues are based upon the reader’s linguistic
competence. In contrast to reading as
translation models, that is, the bottom-up
ones, top-down models theorists believed
that skilled readers go directly from print
to meaning without first reading to speech
(Harris & Sipay, 1984).
These models are influenced by
psycholinguists, and they are mostly
appropriate for skilled readers at the level
of advanced or more advanced.
Interactive Models
Theoriests on interactive models
such as Rumelhart (1980) believe that, at
least for skilled or advanced readers, top-
down and bottom-up processing in
reading seem to occur simultaneously.
Rumelhart believes that comprehension is
dependent on both graphic information
and the information in the reader’s mind.
Comprehension, therefore, may be
obstructed when a critical skill or a piece
of knowledge is missing. In a case such as
this, the skilled reader compensates by
decoding a word, relying on context, or
both word and context.
In conjunction with these theories,
reading is defined as the meaningful
interpretation of printed or written
symbols, while comprehending is a result
of the interaction between the perception
of graphic symbols that represent
language and the reader’s language skill,
and his knowledge of the world. In this
process the reader tries to create meanings
that are intended by the writer (Harris &
Sipay, 1984:8).
Therefore, the nature of reading
task changes as the learners progress from
less mature to more mature levels.
Reading in this case is not one skill but a
large number of interrelated skills that
develop gradually over a period of years.
So, it is a complex process in which the
recognition and comprehension of written
symbols are influenced by reader’s
perceptual skills, decoding skills,
experiences, language backgrounds, mind
sets, and reasoning abilities.
This last model will be discussed
further as this model has become the
centre of interest for recent theories,
research, and practice in teaching reading.
The discussion will be covered in schema
theory.

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 27
SCHEMA THEORY
The notion of schema and related
concepts results from the development of
research in cognitive science where the
importance of background knowledge in
language comprehension is found to exist.
Rumelhart (1980:34) points out that
A schema theory is basically a theory
about knowledge. It is a theory about
how knowledge is represented and about
how that representation facilitates the
use of knowledge in particular ways.
According to schema theories, all
knowledge is packaged into units. These
units are the schemata. Embedded in
these packages of knowledge is, in
addition to the knowledge itself,
information about how this knowledge is
to be used. A schema, then, is a data
structure for representing the generic
concepts stored in memory.
In relation to the definition above,
McCormick & Pressley (1997:62-63) define
schemata as generalised knowledge about
objects, situation, and events. Activation
of schema, according to them, can
dramatically affect comprehension,
inferences, attention allocation, and
memory of what is read. The title of
passage can also activate schemata.
Related to reading, according to
schema theory, a text only provides
directions for readers as to how they
should retrieve or construct meaning from
their own previously acquired knowledge.
The previously acquired knowledge is
called the reader’s background
knowledge, and its structures are called
schemata (Rumelhart, 1980). Then, on the
basis of this theory, comprehending a text
is an interactive process between the
reader’s background knowledge and the
text. Efficient comprehension, then
requires the ability to relate the textual
materials to one’s own knowledge.
Comprehending words, sentences, and
entire texts involves more than just relying
on one’s linguistic knowledge (Carrell &
Eisterhold, 1988:76).
The process of interpretation is
guided by the principle that every input is
mapped against some existing schema
and that all aspects of that schema must be
compatible with the input information.
This principle results in two basic modes
of information processing: bottom-up and
top-down. Bottom-up processing is
evoked by the incoming data, while the
features of data enter the system with the
best fitting, bottom-up schemata. In this
mode schemata are hierarchically
organised, starting from the most general
at the top to the most specific at the
bottom. As these bottom-up schemata
converge into higher level ones, they
become activated. Therefore, bottom-up
processing is called data-driven. Or in
other words, the interpretation is from
parts to whole.
Top-down processing, on the other
hand, occurs as the system makes general
predictions based on higher level, general
schemata and then searches the input for
information to fit into these partially
satisfied, higher ordered schemata. Top-
down processing is, therefore, called
conceptually-driven processing.The
process starts from whole to parts
(Rumelhart, 1980; Carrell & Eisterhold,
1988).
An important aspect of top-down
and bottom-up processing is that both
should be occurring at all levels
simultaneously. The data needed to
instantiate or fill out are available through

28 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015
bottom-up processing, while top-down
processing facilitates their assimilation if
they are anticipated by or consistent with
the reader’s conceptual expectations.
Bottom-up processing ensures that
readers will be sensitive to information
that is novel or that does not fit their on
going hypotheses about the content or
structure of the text, while top-down
processing helps the readers to resolve
ambiguities or to select between
alternative possible interpretations of the
incoming data. Rumelhart (1980),
furthermore, says that these two basic
modes of information processing are used
as sources of activation for schemata.
Schema-theoretic processes as
discussed above all led to new, interactive
models for reading. On the basis of
Rumelhart’s proposal of the interactive
processing, Lee & VanPatten (1995:190-2)
state that the model consists of several
knowledge sources representing different
levels of linguistic representation (feature,
letter, letter cluster, lexical, and semantic
knowledges) as shown in Figure 1.
Interactive models of reading posit that
the components of the model, the
knowledge sources, all act simultaneously
and in parallel on the incoming input.
Figure 1 shows that each
knowledge source is connected to each of
the others. Each can influence the others,
either singly or in combination, so that
semantic knowledge can aid feature
analysis or syntactic knowledge can aid
letter analysis. A very brief description of
the elements of the model is as follows:
Feature analysis refers to the act of
recognising a loop in a letter and the
direction of the loop (p), whereas letter
analysis is recognising that the loops make
a specific letter (p) versus d versus b).
Certain letters do and do not cluster in
particular languages, and the clusters
syllabify in particular way. Letter cluster
analysis tells us that the letter th cluster in
English as in the and ar-thri-tis. Syntactic
knowledge identifies the order of words in
a language so as to make a person is able
to know the difference between ‘Marko hit
Yeti’ and ‘Yeti hit Marko’. This means that
the same words ordered in different ways
can produce different meanings. So, it is
lexical
knowledge
semantic
knowledge
letter
cluster
analysis
feature
analysis
letter
analysis
syntactic knowledge
Figure 1. An Interactive of Model of Reading (Lee &
VaPatten, 1995:191)

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 29
our syntactic knowledge that identifies the
meaning in the order of the words. Lexical
knowledge concerns individual word
properties and meaning, so that the word
work is identified as different from word
and fork, though the last two words are
only different from the first in one
phoneme. Lastly, semantic knowledge
governs meaning at all levels (word,
phrases, clauses, sentences, and
paragraphs).
According to interactive models of
reading, comprehension is built up or
constructed from knowledge sources
which interact with each other on the
input from the written page.
Comprehension, then, is the process of
relating new or incoming information to
information which is already stored in the
memory. Here, readers make connections
between the new information on the
printed page and their existing
knowledge. They must allow the new
information to enter and become a part of
their knowledge store.
In short schema theory as a
learning theory that asserts language
comprehension involves an interactive
process between the learner’s background
knowledge and the text. In an interactive
processing, the reader uses top-down
processing when he relates what he
already knows to the text being processed,
and uses bottom-up processing when he
relates the text being processed to what he
already knows.
READING COMPREHENSION
From the psycholinguistic point of
view, reading is not primarily a visual
process. There are two kinds of
information involved in reading: (i) visual
information, that is the one that comes
from the printed page and (ii) non-visual
information, that is, the information that
comes from the brain of the reader. Visual
information can be seen in a text or any
form of writing, while non-verbal
information is what the reader already
knows about reading, about language,
and about the world in general (Smith,
1973:6). This means that being able to see
sentences in front of our eyes is not
enough; we must know something of the
language in which the material is written,
about its subject matter, and about
reading itself.
In relation to reading
comprehension, four things are necessary
to be reviewed, namely, (i) history of
reading instruction, (ii) types and
purposes of reading, (iii) cognitive reading
skills, and (iv) variables involved in
comprehension.
History of Reading Instruction
Silberstein (1987:28-33) discusses
reading instruction as reflected during the
twenty-five-year’s publication of the
journal English Teaching Form (1962 –
1987). She divides the reading instruction
into three periods of development: (i) a
decade of questioning (1962 – 1973), (ii)
reading and psycholinguistics (the 1970s),
and (iii) interactive reading (the 1980s).
During the first period, there aws a
substantial debate over the role of reading
instruction in language classrooms, that is,
on the utility of audiolingualism in which
the written texts were used as grist for an
oral mill. A major transformation in the
conceptual model of reading had already
begun with the publication of Goodman’s
(1967), article Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Guessing Game. During the 1970s, the
impact of this view on second language

30 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015
reading came to be seen, not only a a
vehicle for language instruction, but also
as a unique information-processing skill.
In the second period,
psycholinguists like Goodman refuted the
view of reading as essentially a
mechanical decoding of speech written
down. Psycholinguists advocated a very
different model of thinking in regard to
reading. A modern psycholinguistic
perspective on reading, according to them,
is based on insights derived from
contemporary linguistics and cognitive
psychology. From this perspective,
reading is viewed as a complex
information-processing skill in which the
reader is seen as an active planning,
decision-making individual who
coordinates a number of skills and
strategies to facilitate comprehension.
Goodman (1967) attacked previous
views of reading by stating: “Simply stated
the common sense notion I seek to refute here
is this: Reading is a precise process. It involves
exact, detailed, sequential perception and
identification of letters, words, spelling
patterns, and large language units”. He then
advocated the following new paradigm of
reading:
In place of this misconception, I offer this;
Reading is a selective process. It involves
partial use of available minimal language
cues selected from perceptual input on the
basis of reader’s expectation. As this
partial information is processed, tentative
decisions are made to be confirmed,
rejected, or refined as reading progresses.
More simply stated, reading is a
psycholinguistic guessing game. It
involves an interaction between thought
and language. Efficient reading does not
result from precise perception and
identification of all elements, but from skill
in selecting the fewest, most productive
cues necessary to produce guesses which
are right the first time.
In accordance with the
psycholinguistic framework for reading,
Silberstein (1987:31) is of the opinion that,
initially, many psycholinguists assumed
that only advanced readers could benefit
from this approach to reading. Gradually,
however, reading skills have appeared in
beginning texts as well. It has become
evident that successful reading at all levels
entails the cognitive processes delineated
above.
In the interactive reading period of
the 1980s it emphasised that meaning is
not fully present in a text waiting to be
decoded. Rather, meaning is created
through the interaction of text and reader.
In this model of reading, background
knowledge which facilitates text
compehension has an important role to
play. Here schema theory which has been
discussed earlier comes into play.
Interactive reading has come to refer to
the interaction of top-down (conceptually-
driven) and bottom-up (data-driven)
processing.
This model suggests that no text
can be considered generically difficult or
easy simply on the basis of linguistic
features such as syntactic complexity or
word frequency. Texts become easier if
they correspond to students’ prior
knowledge of language, rhetorical
conventions, and the world.
Reading activities developed
within an interactive framework have
placed particular emphasis on teaching
students to activate and use their
background knowledge. This emphasis is
realised in what is called prereading
activities, that is, the activities undertaken

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 31
in order to build and activate their
background knowledge. This approach
seems to be more appropriate for
developing students’ reading skills as well
as their reading proficiency (Dennis,
McKena, and Miller, 1989; Omaggio, 1986;
Clarke and Silberstein, 1979; Papalia, 1987;
Carrell, 1987; McKay, 1987).
Types and Purposes of Reading
Types and purposes of reading
cannot be separated from comprehension.
Each type will determine what to achieve
during or after reading. In conjunction
with this Clarke and Silberstein (1979)
point out that classroom activities should
parallel the real world as closely as
possible. Language is a tool of
communication, so methods and materials
should concentrate on the message, not on
the medium. Then, the purposes of
reading should be the same in class as
they are in real life.
In general there are four types of
reading, and thus four purposes of
reading (Clarke and Siberstein, 1979;
Greenwood, 1981; Grellet, 1987), although
the writers have slightly diverse
terminologies. They are (1) skimming (in
order to obtain the general idea of the
author), (2) scanning (in order to obtain
specific fact or piece of information), (3)
intensive or thorough reading (in order to
obtain a comprehensive understanding of
a reading text, in this case, reading for
detail), and (4) critical reading (in order to
evaluate information to determine where
it fits into one’s own system of beliefs).
These types of reading can also be called
reading strategies for obtaining necessary
information and for determining the
proper approaches for a reading task.
It is expected that knowing the
types and purposes of reading and then
applying the strategies will be very
helpful for students to develop their
reading skills.
Cognitive Reading Skills
Efficient reading depends first of all
on having a purpose for reading. In this
case, the reader knows why he is reading
a text. One possible way of establishing a
purpose of reading is by focussing the
learner’s attention on a particular
cognitive skill. Many lists of cognitive
skills have been suggested by those who
are interested in reading instruction, but
they all include most of the following
(Greenwood, 1981: 89):
1. to anticipate both the form and the
content;
2. to identify the main idea (s);
3. to recognise and recall specific
details;
4. to recognise the relationship
between the main idea(s) and its
(their) expansion (example, lists,
etc.);
5. to follow a sequence, such as
events, illustration, stages of
arguments;
6. to infer from the text (to read
between the lines);
7. to draw conclusions; and
8. to recognise the writer’s purpose
and attitude.
In relation to the above reading
skills, Brown in Mueller & Tiffany (n.d.)
has compiled a taxonomy of reading
microskills. The taxonomy provides an
overview of the skill processes learners
must learn to perform as they become
efficient readers. The following are the
taxonomy of reading microskills:

32 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015
1. Discriminate among the distinctive
graphemes and orthographic
patterns of English.
2. Retain chunks of language of
different lengths in short-term
memory.
3. Process writing at an efficient rate
of speed to suit the purpose.
4. Recognise a core of words, and
interpret word order patterns and
their significance.
5. Recognise grammatical word
classes, verbs, etc), systems, (e.g.
tense agreement, pluralisation),
rules and elliptical forms.
6. Recognise that a particular meaning
may be expressed in different
grammatical forms.
7. Recognise cohesive devices in
written discourse and their role in
signalling the relationship
between and among clauses.
8. Recognise the rhetoritical forms of
written discourse and their
significance for interpretation.
9. Recognise the communicative
functions of written texts, according
to form and purposes.
10. Infer context that is not explicit by
using background knowledge.
11. From events, ideas, etc., described,
infer links and connections between
events, deduce causes and effects,
and detect such relations as main
idea, supporting idea, new
information, generalisation, and
examplification.
12. Distinguish between literal and
implied meanings.
13. Detect culturally specific references
and interpret them in a context of
the appropriate cultural schemata.
14. Develop and use battery of reading
strategies, such as scanning and
skimming, detecting discourse
markers, guessing the meaning of
words from context, and activating
schemata for interpretation of texts.
Furthermore, it is suggested in the
lists that reading comprehension abilities
be closely related to writing abilities,
especially when they involve
comprehending the organisation of the
text. In this case, the two primary
language skills are mutually reinforcing.
THE VARIABLES INVOLVED IN
COMPREHENSION
Shrum & Glisan (1994:114-116)
review some research findings on the
variables involved in comprehension.
According to them, there are six variables
that affect comprehension, both oral and
written. The first variable is the
importance of context and background
knowledge in understanding input. The
degree to which the reader is able to
merge input with previously acquired
knowledge structures or schemata,
determines how successful he or she will
be in comprehending. This linking of new
and existing knowledge helps the reader
make sense of the text more quickly.
The second variable is the degree to
which the reader uses strategies such as
guessing in context. Prediction of
fortcoming input is one characteristic of
native readers’ processing. Many studies
support the claim that learners who
interact with text through strategies such
as predicting, skimming, scanning, and
using background knowledge
comprehend much better than those who
fail to use these strategies.

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 33
The third variable is the purpose
for reading or the nature of the task. The
type of task determines the kind os
strategy required. Two kinds of reading
strategies , extensive and intensive,
involve different objectives and skills.
Extensive reading, usually reading for
pleasure, requires the ability to
understand main ideas, find specific
information, and read quickly. Intensive
reading, on the other hand, most often as
reading for information, requires the
ability to read for details, understanding
implication, and follow relationships of
thought throughout the text.
The fourth variable relates to the
length of text presented for
comprehension. At he beginning level,
students are typically given shorter,
edited texts to read. Students who process
shorter texts are more likely to use word-
for-word processing strategies since the
demands on memory permit greater
attention to detail. Some evidence
suggests that larger texts may be easier for
students to comprehend because they are
more cohesive and interesting to students,
although the texts require more top-down
processing.
The fifth variable in the
comprehension process is related to the
type of written text presented.
Traditionally, the difficulty of texts has
been judged on the basis of the simplicity
of grammatical structures and the
familiarity of the vocabulary. This may be
due to the fact that comprehension is
tested on the basis of grammar and
vocabulary recognition rather than on the
interaction with the text’s message. But
empirical studies revealed that exposure
to texts with unfamiliar grammar and
vocabulary does not significantly affect
comprehension. Other factors such as the
quality of the text itself in terms of factual
consistency and coherence, as well as the
background knowledge and motivation of
learners, may be more important
considerations for teachers when selecting
texts.
The sixth variable in
comprehension is the treatment of new
vocabulary. It is acknowledged that the
use of vocabulary lists with definitions
does little to help the reader build
vocabulary or comprehend more
effectively while reading. It will be more
effective if new words are presented in
their thematic and discourse relationship
to the text than in their dictionary
definitions. As an alternative, the teacher
uses pre- and post-reading discussion in
order to link text information to reader
background knowledge.
Therefore, in order to comprehend
written texts well, the instructor should
take into consideration the following
variables: (1) background knowledge of
the student, (2) strategies that students use
in the comprehension task, (3) purpose of
reading or the nature of the task, (4)
length of the text, (5) type of text, and (6)
treatment of new vocabulary.
CONCLUSION
In the discussion the nature of
reading, schema theory, reading
comprehension, and the variables
involved in reading comprehension has
been reviewed. In discussing the nature of
reading, the three models of reading
namely Bottom-Up, Top-Down, and
Interactive explained briefly. Then, The
Schema Theory reinforces what has been
discussed in The Nature of Reading
Section.

34 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015
In reviewing reading
comprehension, three points have been
discussed: The History of Reading
Instruction, Types and Purposes of
Reading, and Cognitive Reading Skills.
Finally, the variables in comprehension
consists of (1) the importance of context
and background knowledge in
understanding input, (2) the degree to
which the reader uses strategies in
understanding the text, (3) the purpose for
reading or the nature of the task, (4) the
length of text presented for
comprehension, (5) the type of written text
presented, and (6) how to treat the
vocabulary.
The writer hopes this article would
help those involved in the teaching of
reading comprehension to widen the
knowledge and understanding of as well
as developing reading materials.
REFERENCES
Carrel, P.L. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1988).
Schema theory and ESL Reading
Pedagogy. In Patricia L. Carrel, et
al. (Eds.). Interactive Approaches to
Language Reading. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carrel, P.L. (1987). A View of Written Text
as a Communicative Interaction:
Implications for Reading in a
Second Language. In Joanne
Devine, et al. (Eds.). Research in
Reading in English as a Second
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Clarke, M.A. & Silberstein, S. (1979).
Toward a Realization of
Psycholinguistics Principles in the
ESL Reading Class. In Ronald
Mackay, et al. (eds.). Reading In a
Second Language. Rowley,
Massachusetts: Newbury House
Publisher, Inc.
Denies, L., McKenna, M.C. & Miller, J.W.
(1989). Project READ:s: Effective
Design for Content Area Reading.
Journal of Reading, 22(6).
Goodman, K.H. (1967). Reading: A
Psycholinguistic Guessing Game.
Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6,
126-35.
Greenwood, J. (1981). Comprehension and
Reading. In Gerry Abbot, et al.
(eds.) The Reading of English as an
International Language: A Practical
Guide. pp. 35-47. Glasgow: William
Collins Sons and Co. Ltd.
Grellet, F. (1987) Developing Reading Skills.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Harris, A. J. & Sipay, E. R. (1984). How to
Increase Reading Ability. Seventh
Edition. New York: Longman
Lee, J.F. & vanPatten, B. (1995). Making
Communicative Language Teaching
Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Mueller, A.M. & Tiffany, D.A. (n.d.).
English as a Second Language,
Secondary Scope and Sequence (9-
12). Iowa City: Iowa Community
School District.
Omaggio, A.C. (1986). Teaching Language
in Context: Proficiency-Oriented
Instruction. Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle & Heinle Publisher, Inc.
Papalia, A. (1987). Interaction of reader
and text. In Wilga M. Rivers. (Ed.).
Interactive Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015 | 35
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The
Building Blocks of Cognition. In
Rand J. Spiro, et al.(eds.) Theoretical
Issues in Reading Comprehension.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Silberstein, S. (1987). Let’s Take Another
Aother Look at Reading: Twenty-
Five Years of Reading Instruction.
English Teaching Form, 26(4), 28-35.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding Reading: A
Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading
and Learning to Read. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Smith, F. (1973). Psycholinguistics and
Reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.

36 | Journal on English as a Foreign Language, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2015