Evaluation of Schema Theory

The schema theory is a theory on how our minds organise and use the information gained from our experiences. Over time, it has been contributed to by the collective work of many theorists, including Bartlett, Piaget, and Vygotsky in the 1920s and ‘30s. 

Schemas are clusters of bits of associated information that we build up throughout experiences indirectly. For example, “work”, “science”, “time”, and “exhaustion” could be schemas for school and education.

Schemas are characterised as vast, overlapping and interconnected. They are flexible to change if one’s experiences change, but generally stay resilient throughout one’s life. Numerous studies have shown that they affect one’s cognition–how we think–usually in an automatic, non-conscious way.

The schema theory consists of three key claims.

1. We use schemas to learn and sort out new information, retrieve memories and make decisions

Jean Piaget’s famous example of this is a hypothetical situation in which a child is familiar with horses. Upon first encounter with a cow, she calls it a horse, as they share the same characteristics that belong to her “horse schema”. This is dubbed as assimilation: fitting knowledge into existing schemas. The child will then create a new “cow schema”.

This claim is supported by the study Bransford and Johnson conducted in 1972. It aimed to investigate how the activation of schemas can facilitate better comprehension and recall of new information. 48 US college students were shown a series of random sentences about flying a kite, making it difficult to piece together what they referred to. However, one group of participants was given the topic “flying a kite” before being shown the sentences. The second group of participants were able to activate their schema for flying kites and better understand and remember the sentences than the group not given context, as demonstrated in their better scores on a follow-up quiz. 

Bransford and Johnson concluded that providing context by activating the relevant schema helped participants better understand and remember the sentences. This supports schema theory’s claim that schemas help us process information.

2. Schemas save cognitive energy

Commonly known to psychologists, humans are known as “cognitive misers”. A “miser” is someone who expends as little as possible to achieve an outcome. Therefore, this means that we make short-cuts rather than carefully process information to reach our cognitive outcome. This is usually an unconscious process, and schema theory’s claim is that because the world presents so much information at once, schemas usually help us efficiently navigate the world.

3. Schematic processing can also result in errors, distortion, bias, and stereotyping

An example of this is Roman numerals. One, two and three are presented as I, II and III. Because schemas allow us to reach conclusions quickly without considering other factors, they might influence us to believe that the number four should be IIII.

The schema theory exhibits a wide diversity in terms of application.

• Scaffolding: activating prior knowledge before completing a task 

• Using analogies and metaphors when introducing new concepts

• Using mind-maps 

• Negative self-schemas may lead to depression (the notion that a bad outcome is the same as failure)

Overall, the schema theory has both strengths and weaknesses.

In terms of strengths, it is reliable because there are no competing theories and the idea is not in dispute. There is lots of supporting research, and research on memory using brain-imaging technology suggests that individual memories involve vast, complex networks of neurons spread out over numerous brain regions. This suggests that schemas may have traceable biological correlations.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to define what a schema is, because it is a concept, not an observable object. According to Cohen 1993, “the whole idea of a schema is too vague to be useful”. The theory has been criticised for not providing explanations of how schemas work but just speculating about what they do. Finally, another weakness of the theory is that schemas themselves are untestable, and the theory hinges on their effects.

It is difficult to argue for or against schema theory, but it can be said that it is a valuable framework for understanding cognitive processes, particularly in learning and memory. Overall, it remains a significant area of study in cognitive psychology.