Thinking Thinking

As I was reading Debbie Miller's Reading With Meaning: Teaching Comprehension in the Primary Grades I was struck by her use of the word "schema."  Miller opens a read-aloud/think-aloud by telling children that "[t]hinking about what you already know is called using your schema, or using your background knowledge.  Schema is all the stuff that's already inside your head, like places you've been, things you've done, books you've read--all the experiences you've had that make up who you are and what you know and believe to be true" (p. 57).

Now, I thought That all sounds great, but why use the actual word "schema"?   What could be the use of bogging down the children's comprehension with this strange new vocabulary word?  Why not just teach the concept and leave the teacher jargon out of it?

But as I read on I started to see how very explicitly Miller was teaching her kids to think about thinking about texts.  Her explanation of her metacognitive approach to reading used a number of concrete metaphors for an abstract concept.  She explains that schema is like "files in their heads" (p. 67) and that to activate background knowledge, we "search our brains for that mental file, open it, and make connections between what we know and the new information" (p. 129-130).  She shows them paper files and files on the computer, and over two days she models the process of "activating, building, and revising schema" (p. 68) by making a physical chart with a file folder and connections written on sheets of paper that are candidates for inclusion in the folder.

Now the first thought that occurred to me was those kids are going to be pretending to be robots with computer brains any time they read.  But hey, maybe that could be a good hook to attract young kids to this strategy.  Then I thought about the mental process that kids might go through when first hearing Miller use the word "schema."  If they are anything like me, when they are presented with an unfamiliar word they might look at the way that it fits into the overall structure of what is being said to decide if it is worth paying attention to.  The way Miller is speaking clearly indicates that "schema" is the main idea that she's talking about.  So I say to myself Hey, this word is important! and then go on to figure out how this idea is like and unlike other concepts I already know about.  So, in effect, the jarring sensation that encountering this word in a piece of speech meant for children had on me is probably quite like the effect it has on children.  How different is that sensation that tells them Hey, this is important from telling their brains to make space for a new idea, or from telling a computer to create a new file and name it "schema"?

Any skepticism I still had that the children would meaningfully incorporate this strange new word was put to rest by one student's definition of schema which is as concise and eloquent as any I've ever heard: "It's kind of like your old schema comes out of your head and grabs the new schema and pulls it back inside your head" (p. 69).