Abstract
Much research has been done on content and formal schemata in reading with students of English as a Second Language (ESL), but the research into formal schemata in ESL writing is a more recent area of study. The concept of “formal schemata” has been neglected in the field of second language writing. By examining related theories and empirical studies, this reflective inquiry attempts to introduce schema theory to contrastive rhetoric research, which focuses on the ESL writers’ problems with rhetorical form and tries to explain this in reference to their first languages. Under the theoretical framework of constructivism, this paper draws insights from schema theory, reading research, reading-writing connections, current-traditional rhetoric, and contrastive rhetoric. A model of ESL writing emphasizing the interrelationship among context, cognition, and rhetorical form and a notion of “building formal schemata with ESL student writers” are proposed and the theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed. To illustrate the proposed writing mode, a sample instructional unit plan based on such a model is presented to show how the model links schema theory to contrastive rhetoric via an Asian student orientation.

Key words: Constructivism; formal schemata; ESL writing; contrastive rhetoric; rhetorical form.
  
1. Introduction

Much research has been done on content and formal schemata in reading with students of English as a Second Language (ESL). It has been found that when content and form are familiar, ESL readers are able to comprehend and memorize a text better; in contrast, unfamiliar content and form can cause trouble for the readers and affect reading speed and effectiveness (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Meyer, 1982; Carrell, 1981). Furthermore, content and formal knowledge may help the readers predict the organization and purpose of a text (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Meyer, 1982).
   In her review of Meyer’s ESL reading research, Carrell (1987) suggested a positive connection between teaching textual structure and effective writing, that is: shared formal schemata were helpful for the reader and the writer to negotiate meaning of the text. The research into formal schemata in ESL writing, however, is still in its infancy and the concept of  “formal schemata” has been neglected in the field of second language writing.

1.1  Problem

Many of the problems ESL writers encounter can be related to the form of English writing and the interference of the form of their first languages (see Flowerdew, 1999; Silva, 1997). Contrastive rhetoric research focuses on the problems of the ESL writers and tries to explain them in reference to their first languages (Connor, 1996). Schema theory has been dealing with content and rhetorical form in reading; and genre analysis research focuses on rhetorical features of different writing tasks and contexts. However, though contrastive rhetoric researchers are paying increasing attention to genre analysis (Connor, 1996), there has not been much effort in relating schema theory to contrastive rhetoric research. There are very few empirical studies applying schema theory to examine ESL writers’ problems with rhetorical form, and a notion of “building formal schemata with ESL writers” is yet to be introduced to contrastive rhetoric and second language writing research.

1.2  Purpose

This paper aims to propose a model of ESL writing taking into account not only rhetorical form but also the context and the cognitive aspect of ESL writing as well as the interaction among the three. Based on such a model, the paper proposes a notion “building formal schemata with ESL student writers” and argues that this notion plays an important role in ESL writing research and pedagogy because it brings together context, cognition, and rhetorical form.

1.3  Research Questions

The practice of teaching rhetorical form has been pervasive in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) composition classes despite the fact that the product approach has been criticized by researchers and described as a prescribed and linear approach. Is there any practical reason behind the teachers’ zest in teaching rhetorical form? In ESL reading research, it has been found that background knowledge of content and form enhances reading performance. Moreover, in ESL writing, the learners seem to have more problems with how to write (e.g. grammar, genre, organization) than with what to write (i.e. the content area). Can the concept of formal schemata be used to interpret and attack those problems? Contrastive rhetoric, as its name indicates, initially compares rhetorical forms across languages. Can the concept of formal schemata be introduced to contrastive rhetoric research? Contrastive rhetoric research is now expanding its investigation areas to context and cognition. Are context and cognition related to the concept of formal schemata?
   Therefore, the following questions are applied to guide this paper: Are formal schemata related to ESL writers’ problems in ESL writing? Why do we focus on the form in writing? Are context, cognition, and rhetorical form related to and interact with one another? Are formal schemata applicable to contrastive rhetoric? What are the theoretical and pedagogical implications of formal schemata in ESL writing?
           

1.4  Significance

The introduction of schema theory into reading research was a notable advance. Contrastive rhetoric research has been dealing with ESL writers’ problem with form for years. If “formal schemata” can link schema theory with contrastive rhetoric, it will expand the knowledge base and clarify the focus of contrastive rhetoric research. More importantly, a notion of  “building formal schemata” will have much pedagogical potential in ESL writing instruction as demonstrated through the discussions in the later part of this paper on pedagogical implications and on an instructional unit.

1.5  Definitions of Terms

Some key terms are defined as follows for this paper:

• Constructivism: An epistemology that views knowledge as constructed and learning as an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their previous knowledge (Bruner, 1966)
• Schema: a mental framework for understanding and remembering information of            the world (Bartlett, 1932); an organization of concepts and actions that can be revised by new information. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998).
• Form: conventional patterns of rhetorical and textual organization of written language, e.g., rhetorical conventions, genre, and textual structure.
• Content schemata: schematic background knowledge of topic.
• Formal schemata: schematic background knowledge of organizational patterns and rhetorical conventions of written texts.

2.  Theoretical Framework:

In the following section of the paper, I begin with reviewing constructivism as the theoretical framework of schema theory and three prominent constructivist learning theories. I then discuss schema theory and its application in ESL reading research. After that, I address reading-writing connections. It follows that the shared knowledge and process of reading and writing suggest that schema theory may also be applied in ESL writing research. After my justification of teaching form in ESL writing, I argue that the current-traditional rhetoric should be criticized not because it is wrong, but because it is insufficient and misleading. I maintain that a rhetorical pattern is conventional response to a recurrent context of writing. As a result, it is relatively stable and hence teachable. For individual writers, rhetorical conventions are acquired from the discourse community, that is the social context of writing, and stored in memory; while contextual response to a specific writing task relies on cognitive strategies of individual writers. Both memory and strategy have to do with cognition that comes into play with the social and specific contexts of writing. Therefore, the teaching of rhetorical form needs to consider the interaction among context, cognition and form, which provides a scaffold or starting point for novice writers.
   On the above theoretical ground, I then propose a notion of formal schemata construction in ESL writing and contend that it could be an alternative to the current-traditional rhetoric due to its constructivist, contextual, and modifiable nature with both cognition and context taken into account. Contrastive rhetoric research studies form and culture. It would be enriched by cognitive and social-cultural perspectives, including a notion of “building formal schemata in writing”. That is how I will link schema theory to contrastive rhetoric. After that, I review some empirical studies on formal schemata in ESL writing, with a focus on form and cognition, to illustrate that formal schemata reveal the connections between form and cognition. Finally I call for future reflections and studies on “building formal schemata in writing” by exploring the interrelationship among context, cognition and rhetorical form.

2.1  Constructivism

Constructivist epistemology and learning theories focus on the roles of the individual’s construction of meaning, prior knowledge and experiences as well as social context in the learning process. Constructivism (see definition) is closely related to schema theory and writing research. It is the theoretical framework of schema theory. Moreover, the paradigm of constructivism is applicable to writing research due to the meaning making, critical thinking, and epistemic nature of writing.
   Epistemology deals with the nature of knowledge and knowing. Constructivism as an epistemology dates back to the times of Socrates (470-399 B.C.), who asserted, “knowledge is only perception”. Socrates may not be absolutely right about that, but his remarks revealed the subjectivity involved in human beings’ (both collective and individual) exploration and understanding of the world. The 20th century saw the educational paradigm shift from positivism (knowledge is transferred from the teacher to the students) to constructivism (knowledge is constructed by the students themselves through their individual interactions with the learning environment). If scholarly endeavors can be viewed as human beings’ collective pursuit of knowledge, then professional literature is the result of the temporary (because this is an on-going process) consensus of the researchers in a field. A discourse community constructs the content and topics of inquiries within the field, as well as the research methods and the ways of communication. For instance, in the field of Second Language Writing research, there have been much efforts in shaping common topics (e.g. Silva, 1990; 1993; 1997; Leki, 1991; See also Matsuda, 1997b; Kapper, 2002) and methods of inquiries (e.g. the Third Symposium on Second Language Writing), but the lack of a comprehensive Second Language Writing theory suggests that professionals in the field have not yet reached consensus on a theoretical ground for the field.

2.2  Constructivist Learning Theories

Learning theories embracing constructivist epistemology were represented by cognitive constructivism, social constructivism and transformative learning theory. Although Piaget (1970) had not claimed himself a constructivist, his theory of cognitive development constituted the basis of lots of constructivist learning theories including social constructivism and transformative learning theory.
   Piaget (1970) made the statement that “intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself”. In other words, in the first place, knowledge is the organized information of the world.   Piaget’s theory of cognitive development maintained that knowledge could not be readily transmitted to a human mind. Rather, it had to be constructed by individuals through their own experiences which created mental patterns in their heads. Piaget (1970) further pointed out that as mental patterns underlying specific acts of intelligence, cognitive structures developed through assimilation and accommodation. When new information is identified by previous cognitive structures, it is incorporated into the structures; when new information is distinct from previous cognitive structures, it is either discarded or the cognitive structures will be modified to accommodate new information. Another constructivist researcher Bruner (1966) further argued that cognitive structure (i.e., schema, mental model) provided meaning and organization to experiences and allowed the individual to "go beyond the information given".  Educational practice derived from cognitive constructivism featured learner-centered approach in instruction.
   Lev Vygotsky (1981), a social constructivist psychologist, emphasized the social context of learning and claimed that learning is situated and can be best achieved through social interaction. Educational practice inspired by social constructivism includes contextual, collaborative learning and workshop-like classroom.
   Recently, Mezirow (1995) proposed a transformative learning theory, which is rooted in constructivism and focusing on the transformative nature of learning. Mezirow (1995) described learning as "the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or a revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action". Because transformative learning theory emphasizes rational, cognitive processes related to critical reflection, it will be of great application potential in the field of composition studies in general and in L2 writing in particular.

2.3  Schema Theory   

Bartlett (1932) was the first person to propose the concept of schema, although Piaget (1970) had referred to the similar concept as cognitive structure and mental model. Bartlett (1932) advocated that human memory takes the form of schema that provides a mental framework for understanding and remembering information. Rumelhart (1980) further developed the schema concept and described schema theory as basically a theory of how knowledge is mentally represented in the mind and used. More recently, Anderson (1995) described “schema” as “an abstract knowledge structure that captures regularities of objects and events and should include all variation of the known cases in a flexible way”…and “the schema is generated by the repetition of the same occurrence in such a way that the brain will preserve the common features” (Anderson, 1995).
   Based on above descriptions of schema, it can be inferred that schema has the following characteristics: it is organized - when we learn, information is classified into hierarchical categories; it is built on prior knowledge of the individual - the process of building schema is accumulative and individualized; it contains the salient features of the object or event - schema directs our attention to the most distinguishable aspects; it takes repeated encounters to build a schema - that is why practice is necessary; it is contextual - schema comes from various real contexts; and it is modifiable - schema can be modified to accommodate new information and contexts (For attributes of schema, see also Thorndyke & Yekovich, 1980).
   According to Graesser (1981; see also Anderson, 1985), schema has mainly four kinds of functions. First, schema provides background knowledge to interpret a specific event.  Second, schema provides background knowledge to infer beyond the information given. Third, schema generates predictions of events, actions, and information. Fourth, schema helps the individual identify regularities so that more attention can be allocated to accommodating new information.
   In order to construct new schema, “cognitive hooks” need to be provided to hang new information (Hayes and Tierney, 1982). Measures for construction and activation of schema include analogies, conflicting information, advance organizers and relevant personal anecdotes. The bottom line is to build an association between old and new schemata.

2.4  Schema in ESL reading

In the field of TESOL, Carrell & Eisterhold (1983) divided schema into two categories: content schema and formal schema. They defined content schema as a reader's background or world knowledge of the topic, and formal schema as the background knowledge of organizational forms and rhetorical structures of written texts. Formal schema can include knowledge of different text types and genres, and also includes the understanding that different types of texts have different ways of using text organization, language structures, vocabulary, grammar, level of formality/register.
   Carrell & Eisterhold’s (1983) studies found that familiar formal schema helped subjects enhance the quantity of recall in a story. When examining the combined effects of both content and formal schemata, Carrell & Eisterhold (1983) found that the more both content and form are familiar to the reader, the easier reading becomes. Based on these results, they suggested that ESL reading teachers should help students acquire appropriate content and formal schemata for better comprehension of text.
   From a standpoint of text as interaction, Carrell (1987) reviewed the research on text analysis and reading, especially studies done by Meyer (1982), and suggested some implications for ESL composition. In Meyer’s (1982) empirical reading research, as Carrell cited, it was found that the subjects’ recalls of text content were enhanced significantly when they utilized the structure of the text to organize ideas. Meyer (1982) also found that readers were affected differently by different textual structures that served the different goals of a writer. Implications for ESL composition included that ESL writers should be taught about the top-level organizational structures of expository text, about the way to achieve specific communication goals, and about the way to use markers (such as ‘because’, ‘therefore’, ‘likewise’, ‘however’) to signal textual organization. 
   In the review of research on text analysis and reading, Carrell (1987) brought to our knowledge that reading and writing are interactive meaning making processes, in which the writer utilizes his/her formal schemata to anticipate those of the readers’, while the readers’ formal schemata help them make sense of the text content. In my view, this article is closely related to ESL students’ academic writing, in which ESL writers seem to be lacking of appropriate formal schemata to meet the expectations of their readers of native speaker of English (NSE) and fail to accomplish specific communicative goals. For instance, an international graduate student may have difficulty fulfilling specific tasks in academic writing, e.g. citation and reference, Institutional Review Board proposal, project proposal and Master's thesis, etc., each of which can be further broken down into subtasks that demand more specific formal schemata. Therefore, as a remedy, the ESL students need to construct appropriate formal schemata in academic writing and one way to do it, as this article suggested, can be the learning of textual structure in ESL writing class. 

2.5  Reading-writing Connections
The shared knowledge and process of reading and writing have been well documented. Kucer (1987) proposed four processing universals in reading and writing: readers and writers use their prior knowledge to construct text-world meaning; readers and writers share similar acts of schema location and activation, evaluation, and instantiation; readers and writers have a unified understanding of how written language operates, rather than separate sets of schemata, one for reading and the other for writing; and readers and writers possess common processing behavior patterns when generating  meaning from texts. Johns (1986; 1997) also suggested that readers and writers share communicative purposes and knowledge of roles, context, formal text features, text content, register, cultural values and awareness of intertextuality. Furthermore, Johns (1997) maintained that literacy theories are evolving from traditional views (literacy as production of error-free sentences and texts) through learner-centered views (literacy as individual meaning making), to socioliterate views (literacy as socially constructed). And accordingly, the focus of literacy research moves form text through the learner to the social context.
   Grabe’s (2001a) summary of newer research development in reading and writing relations suggests that knowledge of form, e.g. textual structure and genre, plays important role in reading performance and is useful for writing as well: when reading to write, students can learn genre information for writing from model texts. When writing to read, students’ practice with textual structure enhances reading performance. In the research on reading and writing instruction, there is a wealth of literature on summary writing, using model texts, graphic organizers, note taking and outlining (Grabe, 2001a, p. 26). Leki and Carson (1994, cited in Grabe, 2001a, p. 33) also point out that L2 learners need practice of various tasks combining reading and writing skills, guidance in deconstructing tasks and model texts, and understanding teacher expectations.
   Because reading and writing are closely related to each other with shared knowledge and process (Reid, 1992a), as both the readers and the writers negotiate meaning out of the textual form in light of individual prior experience and the context, it is logical to infer that research in reading and research in writing may share some insights and methods. That is to say, since schema theory has been introduced to reading research successfully, it may also be applicable to writing research. In fact, content schema has found its place in writing research and instruction. Students are provided the opportunity to read and discuss background materials of writing prompts to activate their content schemata to facilitate writing. However, there is not much research on formal schema in writing although much research has been dedicated to form related issues in writing.

2.5  Why Teach Form in ESL Writing

First, from the standpoint of rhetoric and communication, form (e.g. rhetorical conventions, genre, textual structure, perception of coherence, and even grammar) is socially constructed during the written communication process among the members in a society. A language per se is just an artificial symbolic system representing reality. That is to say, words, sentences, grammar, and textual structure are all shaped on the basis of the consensus of the people who use the language. Therefore, different cultures develop different languages and rhetorical conventions over time. Moreover, in a discourse community, there are genres for different communication tasks. Because form is specifically embedded in a given society or discourse community, it is problematic for new comers to the discourse community.
   Second, on the other hand, form is relatively stable (although not absolutely static), predictable and teachable. Since form is constructed by the discourse community over time, it will not change overnight, though it allows variations across individuals. Rhetorical knowledge may turn the seeming chaos of L2 literacy into controllable patterns for ESL learners.
   Third, from the view of rhetoric and cognition, the form of textual structure serves as advanced organizer for ESL learners. For example, ESL students are told that there is a theme in an expository essay, and a topic sentence in each paragraph, that the whole essay consists of introduction, body, and conclusion. Though they do not necessarily apply to all expository essays, organizational hints like these help the novice writers make sense of the essays in a sea of words and help them put their own ideas in order when composing essays.
   Finally, from the view of rhetoric and culture, many problems that ESL student writers encounter can be related to form (e.g. Silva, 1997; Flowerdew, 1999; 2002). Forms differ across cultures due to the different social contexts and cognitions of peoples. For instance, essays written by many Asian people in their L1 are reader-responsible, and the underlying cognitive style is inductive. The writers express their ideas in an implicit way, assuming the readers have enough background knowledge for accurate comprehension. In contrast, essays written by westerners are writer-responsible, and the underlying cognitive style is deductive. The western writers express their ideas explicitly and provide details to illustrate their points. That is to say, the difference of textual form is the result of different cultures and their underlying cognitions.

2.6  Current-traditional Rhetoric and Its Criticism

As an instructional approach for native-speakers of English composition, the current-traditional rhetoric directs students’ attention to form and is also known as the “product approach”. As Silva (1990) observes, the current-traditional rhetoric deals with elements in a paragraph, i.e. topic sentence, support sentence, concluding sentence and transitions, various paragraph developments (e.g. illustration, exemplification, comparison, contrast, causal analysis), organizational entities (introduction, body, and conclusion), and organizational patterns (narration, exposition, and argumentation). The current-traditional rhetoric is also enriched by the recent attempts of Foley, Rose, Haswell to identify teachable organizational patterns as conventional response to tasks (see Robinson, 1994).
   The current-traditional rhetoric has been applied in ESL writing too and is criticized of its “linear and prescriptive nature” (Silva, 1990; see also Leki, 1991). As Silva (1990) points out, the current-traditional rhetoric has turned writing into a skill of arrangement, of “fitting sentences and paragraphs into prescribed patterns”. Writing theories have evolved from product through process to post-process. Each of the theories has both limitations and values in terms of revealing the nature of writing. On the other hand, however, perhaps we need not discard the product approach completely simply because of its limitations. Teaching form in ESL writing may not be totally wrong, but just inadequate. Product approach is not necessarily exclusive of process approach. Nor does the product approach have to be prescriptive and de-contextualized. The students may still need to be explicitly taught and actively practice the knowledge of rhetorical form in writing. The question is why we still need it and how to teach it. My answer is that we need a writing pedagogy addressing the product, process and context of writing at the same time.

2.7  Contrastive Rhetoric Research and Its Concern of Form

Contrastive rhetoric research was proposed by Kaplan (1966), who investigated the relations between rhetoric and culture. It initially focused on the rhetorical problems of the ESL student writers and tried to explain the problems in reference to the students’ first languages and cultures (Connor, 1996). Contrastive rhetoric research is influenced by such theories as applied linguistics, linguistic relativity, rhetoric, text linguistics, discourse types and genres, literacy, and translation (Connor, 1996). A common target of inquiry in those theories is the forms of languages and what contributes to the features of the forms. For instance, genre analysis views research articles, presentations, proposals as different genres and argues that the essential difference lie in their communicative purposes, which are recognized by the professionals in a discourse community and impact the schematic structures of academic genres (Connor, 1996; Swales, 1990; Golebiowski, 1999).
   Connor (1996) suggests that contrastive rhetoric needs to expand its research horizon from pure linguistic analysis of textual structure to incorporating cognitive and social-cultural variables of writing. The awareness of the social construction of meaning in composition has generated research on situations and tasks in cross-cultural writing. Reviewing previous research in contrastive rhetoric, Matsuda (1997a) identifies a static theory of L2 writing and argues that it is limited because it views the L2 writers’ previous linguistic, cultural and educational backgrounds as the only elements that shape the L2 textual organization. In contrast, Matsuda (1997a) proposes a dynamic model of L2 writing, in which both the L2 writers’ and the L1 readers’ previous backgrounds (which are complex and flexible) and the shared discourse community (which is local, historical, and interactive) affect the L2 textual organization. Moreover, the interrelationship among these elements is bi-directional (Matsuda, 1997a). Rhetorical form needs to be examined not only in context but also on account of cognitive factors. From the point of view of cognition in L1 writing, Flower and Hayes (1981) put forward a cognitive process model of writing that consists of four interactive components: task, environment, the writer’s long-term memory, and the composing process. In this model, composing is identified as a “problem-solving activity responding to a rhetorical situation in the form of a text” (Flower and Hayes, 1981, cited in Connor, 1996). Moreover, Leki (1992) points out that rhetorical logic is also socially constructed. That is to say, cognition of rhetoric is essentially contextual

2.8  Context, Cognition, and Text - Formal Schemata Construction

Based on above discussion, I would like to propose a model of writing comprising three components that are local, historical, and interactive. They are context, cognition, and text. The context of writing includes such elements as the reader, the writer, their roles in the context, the purpose of the act of writing, the writing task, and the shared discourse community. The cognition component refers to the reader’s and the writer’s memory (schemata), the writer’s strategies of analyzing the context, and   the writer’s strategies of responding to the context. The text is the product of the writer’s response to the context of writing. When composing the text, the writer needs to consider appropriate content and form. Rhetorical conventions are conventional response to contexts of writing. Therefore the teaching of rhetorical form needs to consider the interaction among context, cognition, and form.
   Within the framework of constructivism, the perception of formal schemata construction in ESL writing emphasizes reading and writing connections, rhetoric and cognition relations, and social dimensions of rhetoric, literacy, and learning. Formal schemata construction may be an alternative for current traditional- rhetoric and may enrich contrastive rhetoric research, because it does not focus on textual form solely; instead, it also takes into account the factors of cognition and context in ESL writing. First, the idea of formal schemata construction reveals the important role that knowledge of rhetorical form plays in ESL writing. ESL students have not as many problems in what to write as in how to write. That is to say, ESL students have wonderful ideas; but the problem is how to present their ideas in English writing in a way that is accepted by the intended audience. When it comes to academic writing, this is also true with first language (L1) student writers, that is why genre analysis investigates rhetorical conventions in L1. Second, formal schemata refer to the cognitive aspect of learning. They are constructed in the mind of each individual, so they are modifiable to accommodate new information, rather than transmitted or prescribed, as opposed to current traditional- rhetoric. Third, formal schemata are socially constructed hence contextual, associated with specific writing tasks, situations, and discourse communities.

2.9  Relevant Empirical Studies on Formal Schemata in ESL Writing

There are very few empirical studies on formal schemata in ESL writing. For one thing, maybe because cognition is not yet a well developed area of inquiry in ESL writing. There has not been a close connection between schema theory and ESL writing research. For another, the notion of formal schemata construction is yet to be applied to ESL writing research. Previous relevant studies use other similar terms to refer to formal schemata, such as knowledge of rhetorical structures, which differs from knowledge of formal schemata due to its exclusion of cognition and context.
   Below is a review of two representative empirical studies exploring textual form and cognition in ESL writing. These two studies substantiate the need of   proposing the notion of formal schemata construction in ESL writing, because it makes more sense when we look through similar studies with such a notion in mind.
   Using the approach of contrastive rhetoric, Hinds (1990) illustrated the differences of rhetorical structures between English and East Asian Languages. By examining Asian students’ samples of ESL writing, Hinds (1990) noted that most of them could be classified as inductive writing, in which the thesis statement appeared at the end. On the other hand, Hinds (1990) argued, most of the English-speaking readers, favor deductive writing, in which the thesis statement appeared at the beginning. He also maintained that due to the difference of inductive and deductive preference, Western readers might not understand competent writing of speakers of Asian languages appropriately. This study is an example connecting textual structure to cognition.
   Drawing upon recent research on writing-reading connection, Reid (1996) suggested that ineffective ESL writing may partly due to the ESL writer’s contextual and rhetorical schemata that differ from those of native English speaker (NES). Reid (1996) conducted a study examining how well NES and ESL student readers and writers could predict and produce appropriate second sentences that followed the topic sentence in a paragraph of academic American English. Findings showed that by using their schemata, NESs were able to predict the second sentences twice as often as ESL writers, although inexperienced NES writers occasionally also produced inappropriate second sentences. Probably schemata help build a bridge between form and contexts, because formal schemata are constructed in specific contexts.

2.10  Summary

The arguments I have been making are as follows: knowledge is constructed, rather than transmitted. That is to say, when we learn, information is categorized on the basis of prior knowledge and experience. Moreover, schemata that organize those categories are generated from contextual knowledge and experience.
   Schema theory derived from constructivist theories and epistemology. The application of schema theory in reading research reveals that content and formal schemata improve ESL reading competence. Furthermore, reading-writing connections suggest the possibility of introducing schema theory, especially the term of formal schemata, into ESL writing research. Rhetorical form has been a central concern of both L1 and L2 writing pedagogy. As a result, I try to explore the rationale for teaching textual organization from rhetorical perspectives in light of communication, pedagogy, cognition, and culture. Current-traditional rhetoric has been criticized for its linear and prescriptive characteristics. I argue that current-traditional rhetoric is limiting due to its failure of considering the factors of cognition and context in writing activities.
   Contrastive rhetoric research has been focusing on relations between form and culture. Its future development needs to address the cognitive and social aspects of rhetoric. In light of research in contrastive rhetoric and cognitive rhetoric, I propose a model of writing consisting of three key components, namely, context, cognition, and text, all of which are local, historical, and interactive. The notion of formal schemata construction embraces the above model on account of context, cognition, and textual organization. Consequently, we should build contextual formal schemata with ESL student writers in a meaningful way (with real tasks, audience and purpose) so that the students can better understand the interactions among context, cognition, and textual form.

2.11  Pedagogical implications: How to build formal schemata with ESL student writers?

Bruner (1966) points out “good methods for structuring knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information.” Patterns and routines are simplified version of model texts. Highlighting the characteristics of rhetorical forms in various contexts, formal schemata may bring writing activity under control for novice ESL writers.
   Some general instructional guidelines can be: Model text deconstruction (tasks, purpose, reader, components and elements of texts) and practice; cognitive process demonstration and practice; and guidelines for practice: contextualizing writing with authentic tasks - real audience and purposes to foster meaningful formal schemata construction and activation, and dynamic interactions among writer, text, reader, and context.
   To illustrate my writing model emphasizing the interrelationship among context, cognition, and text, here is a sample instructional unit plan based on such a model, which shows how the model links schema theory to contrastive rhetoric via an Asian student orientation.

3.  An Instructional Unit Plan

3.1  Background Information  

A.  Target student population
This unit is designed for undergraduate ESL students from Asia with relatively low academic reading and writing proficiency on the basis of their performance on the placement test. There are 12 students in the class, 7 men and 5 women.  The students originally come from different Asian countries: four Chinese, two Japanese, two Vietnamese, two Indians, and two Iranians. They major in various disciplines, such as business, music, French, computer, medicine, and math. Three students are in their 40s. Five students are about 18-20 years old. Four are in their 20s. All of the students possess at least a high school diploma. The three middle-age students even have a B.A. degree from their home country. Everyone in the class needs to improve their academic reading and writing skills so that they can survive various assignments at the university; furthermore, they can move on to a higher level ESL class and eventually be able to take Freshmen English.

• The classroom

Because this is an ESL academic reading and writing class and lots of writing needs to be done in class, the classroom is a computer lab with enough wired computers for each student. In addition, the classroom is equipped with a whiteboard, an overhead projector, a document projector and a screen. There is a long table in the middle of the classroom. The computers are sitting along the wall.

• Prerequisite

Generally speaking, the students should have already been able to write at the sentence level and paragraph level. With a dictionary, they have been able to read most of the articles in daily life for general audience and purposes. They have had basic computer literacy (e.g., typing and basic functions of the keyboard) and experiences using email and the Internet.

3.2  Rationale for the Unit Plan

This instructional unit plan is designed to illustrate the pedagogical implications of the proposed writing model emphasizing context, cognition, and text, by applying the notion of “ building formal schemata with ESL student writers”. In this unit, the students will be exposed to authentic articles and real communicative tasks. They will analyze the sample articles in light of the contexts and the cognitive processes to build appropriate formal schemata and develop effective cognitive strategies for specific writing tasks and contexts. Through implementing the notion of “formal schemata construction”, this unit covers a variety of issues related to ESL writing, such as: context of writing, content and formal schemata, reading and writing connections, process and product, computer technology and composition, intensive reading (to analyze context and form) and extensive reading (to retrieve information for the content of writing), as well as collaborative and individual writing activities.

3.3  Goals of the Unit Plan

In this unit, the students will work in groups to write a research report project on a topic after collecting information via the Internet. First, students brainstorm topics of interest to them, then search the Internet for articles and information, after that each group discusses the outline of the project and allocation of labor; finally, each group writes up the project and presents it. By the end of the unit, the students will be able to acquire such writing skills as:  context analysis and summary, on-line discussions, invention techniques, Internet research, outlining, documenting sources, peer review and revision, and organizing a portfolio. In addition, the students will be able to use such technologies to facilitate writing, discussion, and presentation: Microsoft Word, Blackboard class management, Internet, Email, overhead projector, and PowerPoint.

3.4  Outline of the Unit

Lesson 1:  Context and summary.

• The students brainstorm a few topics of interest, then google www.cnn.com or www.yahoo.com  or VOA (http://www.manythings.org/voa/scripts/) for articles.

 

Example 1.  Older People Go Back to College to Learn New Things http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2007-01-23-voa3.cfm?renderforprint=1

Example 2.  Professor on leave over anti-war letters
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/03/12/anti-war.letters.ap/index.html

Example 3.  From Mao to Yao: China's new cult
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/11/china.celebrity.ap/index.html

• Read an article of choice, analyzing context (purpose, audience, role; see also Matsuda, 1997a), content (main ideas), and form (organization and language feature).

Types of essay (see Leki, 1995):

• Argumentation—to persuade the readers or show them a new way to look        at something
• Exposition --- to inform the readers or to demonstrate your knowledge  

Rationale: Articles in real life are situated in real contexts. Thus the analysis of these contexts is meaningful. Also, the content of real life articles is usually more appealing to the students as opposed to textbook articles. As far as rhetorical form is concerned, however, the latter might outdo the former because they are well chosen to be included in a textbook. Therefore, here the primary purpose of choosing articles from real life is to look at their context and content; their textual organization is only secondary concern.

• Write a summary (with three components, i.e., introduction, body, and conclusion) of the article.

 

• Play with MS Word, read the tutorial  

http://www.ga.k12.pa.us/curtech/wordwork.htm

Rationale: Writing summary is an essential skill of academic writing. It is particularly useful when it comes to writing abstracts, annotations, critiques, and literature reviews…etc. Summarizing connects reading with writing. Only when the students have a good comprehension of the text can they write a summary for it.

Lesson 2:  Online discussions

• Teacher shows the students how to use Blackboard to participate in online discussions;

http://www.uwex.edu/disted/home.html
http://www.gradeworks.com/

• Students post on Blackboard their summaries and the URL of their articles;
• Students read and respond to the summaries;
• Students form a few groups based on a shared topic , with 3 to 4 people in each group working collaborately to write a report project on the topic. 

Rationale: Blackboard class management creates a mini discourse community in which students write for a real audience (their peers and teachers). Furthermore, by responding to discussion threads and the works of their peers, the writers and the readers can closely interact with one another to increase their awareness of the relations between contexts and texts, and develop their cognitive strategies for analyzing and responding to contexts and texts.

Lesson 3:  Invention techniques

First each student, then each group discuss the context and develop a thesis for their group project through brainstorming, free writing, cubing (thinking from different aspects), clustering (classifying the ideas), and looping (summarizing those ideas).

Rationale: Invention techniques deal with developing appropriate content (ideas) for appropriate context. On the other hand, invention techniques reveal the recursive aspect of the composing process which involves cognitive factors (e.g. content schemata)in writing.

Lesson 4:  Internet research

• How to evaluate sources on the Internet?

Audience, Author/producer (credibility), Content (Accuracy, Currency)
http://library.albany.edu/internet/

• Conduct research via Internet (for more advanced students :library, interview, survey, experiment… etc.)

http://library.albany.edu/internet/research.html

Rationale: The Internet has become an increasingly powerful and convenient tool to locate information for research. One of the students’ challenges is to do extensive but fast reading with the writing purpose in mind. In other words, they need to search materials to use in writing. Another concern is to evaluate the sources on the Internet to determine their suitability to be included in writing.

Lesson 5:  Outlining

• Deconstruct a sample article; analyze context, content, and form( for textual analysis, see also Silva, 1990)
• Discuss and write the outline of the group project, post it on Blackboard;
• Provide feedback to the outlines.

Rationale: Poor writers only focus on grammar and mechanics; experienced writers pay more attention to macro level concerns such as organization. Aiming at developing the students’ outlining skills, this lesson combines the product approach with the process approach. Students construct their formal schemata by analyzing model text in terms of context, content, and form. On the other hand, students develop their outlines on account of context.

Lesson 6:  Documenting sources

• Sample article analysis (see Leki, 1995): Citation (Quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing) and references (APA, MLA)
• Each group assigns parts of the project to the members;
• Each student writes up his/her own part.

Rationale: Documenting sources is essential for writing research paper. It is a relatively challenging skill for even graduate students. This lesson exposes the students to writing from multiple texts and avoiding plagiarism by citing appropriately. As for APA or MLA style, they are only required to have a general idea of it. A secondary aim in this class is to foster collaborative writing among group members.

Lesson 7:  Peer review

• Criteria: clear, concrete, concise
• Organization: thesis, topic sentences, supporting details
• Paragraphs: Topic sentence, appeals, conjunctions
• Proofreading: spelling, punctuation and grammar
• Grammar error checklist (see also Xiao, 2002): at the sentence, paragraph and essay levels
• Polishing (word choice, sentence variation)
• Revision

Rationale: This lesson aims to improve the students’ control over their own writing meanwhile become a critical reader of the peers’ work through reviewing their own and one another’s essays against the rubric and checklists. The students will be able to read as a writer and write as a reader. Furthermore, they will learn how to provide constructive feedback to their peers and incorporate feedback from their peers.

Lesson 8:  Portfolio evaluation

• PowerPoint presentation of the group project.
• Submit personal portfolio for evaluation
• Analysis of the context (purpose, audience, role) and strengths of each of the following items: A summary, online discussion threads or email messages, invention process, outlines, first draft, final draft (with revised part highlighted), peer review comments.

Rationale: With PowerPoint, the students present the product of their group project; with portfolio, the students review individual progresses over time. In addition, the students develop metacognition for writing by context analysis and reflection on the strengths of each representative piece of their work.

3.5   A Sample Lesson Plan

Lesson 1:  Context and Summary

Rationale: Articles in real life are situated in real contexts. Thus the analysis of these contexts is meaningful. Also, the content of real life articles is usually more appealing to the students as opposed to textbook articles. As far as rhetorical form is concerned, however, the latter might outdo the former because they are well chosen to be included in a textbook. Therefore, the primary purpose of choosing articles from real life is to look at their context and content; their textual organization is only secondary concern.
   Writing summary is an essential skill of academic writing. It is particularly useful when it comes to writing abstracts, annotations, critiques, and literature reviews…etc. Summarizing connects reading with writing. Only when the students have a good comprehension of the text, can they write a summary for it.
Objectives of the lesson:

• Upon completing the lesson, the students will be able:
• To search the Internet for information
• To analyze the context, content, and form of an article
• To identify types of essay
• To write a summary for an article
• To write with Microsoft Word

Materials/ Resources:
A wired computer for each student, a whiteboard and a marker, an overhead projector, a document projector and a screen.

Time  in Minutes	Activities	Objectives
15	The students brainstorm a topic of interest, then search cnn.com or VOA for articles through key words, quotation marks, and +, -. (http://www.manythings.org/voa/scripts/).	To learn how to search the Internet for information.
10	Mini lecture on most common types of essay in academic writing (see Leki, 1995): Argumentation, exposition and narrative.	To identify the purpose of the essays: to persuade, to inform, and entertain.
5	Each student chooses an article from his or her search results. Discuss in pairs the type of essay it belongs to.	To practice what they have just learned.
30	Mini lecture on analyzing context (purpose, audience, role; see also Matsuda, 1997a), content (main ideas), and form (organization and language feature). Demonstrate it with a sample article.   Break for 10 minutes	To increase the students’ awareness of context, content, and form To build formal schemata for specific writing tasks and contexts.
20	Each student reads the article of choice, analyzes the context, content, and form, and takes notes for the analysis.	To practice context analysis and reinforce the schemata for content and form.
10	Mini lecture on how to write a summary (with 3 components, i.e., introduction, body, and conclusion) for an article. Demonstrate it with a sample article.	To build formal schemata for Summary writing.
20	Each student reads the article of choice again and writes a summary.	Practice summary writing and reinforce formal schemata for summary.
10	Play with Microsoft Word, learn how to open, save, and print a new document, cut & paste, check grammar and spelling. Read the tutorial: http://www.ga.k12.pa.us/curtech/wordwork.htm	To learn how to use Microsoft Word to write.

Assignments and evaluation:
In a Microsoft Word document, students electronically submit their analysis of context, content, and form of the article they choose, along with a summary of the article. Students will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of their own context analysis, summary, and Word document.

4. Future Research

Here is a possible research agenda with research foci and methods to employ for future research on the theme “ Building formal schemata with ESL writers”: A. a literature review on interactions among context, cognition, and textual form across disciplines (a reflective inquiry); B. a qualitative study to examine how the ESL writers construct and activate L2 formal schemata during reading and composing processes (using think-aloud protocols); C. pedagogy (syllabus design); D. a quantitative study to examine the effectiveness of the pedagogy (experimental design). 
   Specifically, in-depth research is needed to examine the proposed writing model by investigating the interactions among context, cognition, and textual organization across disciplines. Such studies may explore answers to the following questions: How does a writer identify, analyze, and respond to a given context of writing? On the other hand, what textual features embody the impact of cognition and context? What are the differences and similarities across languages, disciplines, and individuals?
   Further research also needs to be done on the ESL student writers’ processes of formal schemata construction and activation. When the ESL students build their formal schemata through reading and analyzing model texts and through the composing process, how are context, cognition, and textual organization come into play? Studies of this nature may examine the kind of decisions the ESL student writers make in their composing process as they informed by their formal schemata. What kind of decisions do the ESL student writers make in their composing process as they informed by their formal schemata?  Probably think-aloud protocols can be used to solicit information on ESL students’ strategy of building and activating formal schemata in L2.
   On the basis of research findings, syllabi can be designed to address the needs of students of ESL writing class by helping them construct their formal schemata for L2. The syllabi should be contextualized too, targeting at specific learner populations. Finally, a quantitative research can be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of various pedagogies embracing the notion of formal schemata construction. For instance, two comparable groups of international graduate students may receive two types of teaching methods - one focuses on formal schemata construction, the other is current-traditional rhetoric paragraph writing. Holistic scoring and primary-trait scoring for the subjects’ timed essays can be applied to assess their writing performance after treatment. The results can be compared across groups and analyzed.

5. Conclusion

“Constructivism does not claim to have made earth-shaking inventions in the area of education; it merely claims to provide a solid conceptual basis for some of the things that, until now, inspired teachers had to do without theoretical foundation” (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). It is hoped that the proposed writing model of context, cognition, and text can bring insights into writing research and that the perception of  “building formal schemata with ESL writers” can be a conceptual addition to the field of second language writing. Rhetorical form has been an actual central concern in ESL writing research and teaching but lacking a theoretical foundation. Under the framework of constructivism, schema theory with cognitive and social perspectives on acquiring rhetorical knowledge may help enrich the theoretical foundation of second language writing research in general and of contrastive rhetoric research in particular.

References
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson et al. (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools.  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: Freeman and Co.

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

Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carrell, P. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 47-56). New York:  Addison Wesley.

Carrell, P. L. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In R. Orem and J. Haskell (Eds.), Selected papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE Annual Convention, First Midwest TESOL Conference, 123-132. Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE.

Carrell, P. & Eisterhold. J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOLQuarterly, 17(4), 553-573.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Writing for scholarly publication in English: A multidimensional study. Paper presented at the 3rd Symposium on Second Language Writing, West Lafayette,  IN.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2)123-145.

Golebiowski, Z. (1999). Application of Swales' model in the analysis of research papers by Polish authors. IRAL, 37(3), 231-247.

Grabe, W. (2001 a). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Grabe, W. (2001b). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Sringer-Verlag.

Hayes, D. A. & Tierney, R. J. (1982). Developing readers’ knowledge through analogy.  Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 256-280

Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese & Tai. In U. Connors and A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109). Alexandria: TESOL.

Johns, A. (1986). The ESL student and the revision process: Some insights from schema theory. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 2, 70-80.

Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, P. (1986). Acquisition of schema for comprehension and communication: A study of the reading-writing relationship in ESL. RELC Journal, 17(1),1-13.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns and intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.

Kucer, S. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J. R. Squire (Ed.), The dynamic of language learning  (pp. 27-51). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Leki, I. (1995). Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Meyer, B J. (1982). Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance of plans. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 37-49.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning.  In M. R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the life world (pp. 39-70). New York: SUNY Press.

Kapper, J. (2002). The first 10 years of the Journal of Second Language Writing: An updated retrospective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2),87-89.

Kucer, S. B. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J. Squire (Ed.), The dynamics of language learning, (pp. 27-51). Urbana: National Conference in Research in English.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997 a). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1, 45-60.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997 b). The first five years of the JSLW: A retrospective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 4-5.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

Reid, J. (1992a). The reading-writing connection in the ESL composition classroom.  Journal of Intensive English Studies, 6, 27-51.

Reid, J. (1992 b). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79-107.

Reid, J. (1996). U.S. academic readers, ESL writers, and second sentences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 129-161.

Robinson, W. (1994). On teaching organization: Patterns, process, and the nature of writing. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 21(3), 191-198.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension. NJ: Erlbaum.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of second language writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.

Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native English speaker writing: The research and its implications. In J. Butler, J. Guerra, & C. Severino (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings  (pp.209-219). New York: Modern Language Association.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thorndyke, P. W. & Yekovich, F. R. (1980). A critique of schema-based theories of human story memory. Poetics, 9, 23-49.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995).  A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. 3-16. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology.  In J.V. Wertsch, (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.134-143). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Xiao, Y. (2002). Review of the textbook Better Writing through Editing By Stacy Hagan & Jan Peterson.  TESL-EJ 6(1). Retrieved July 30, 2008 from
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej21/r1.html