iar with fall- but not spring-term course content; and in May students would be familiar with the content of both terms." Based on these assumptions, the researchers hypothesized that (a) students tested in September would be less successful than students tested in either January or May in locating information related to fall-term content, and (b) students tested in May would be more successful in locating information related to spring-term content than students tested in either September or January. Support for the hypotheses, according to Symons and Pressley, would support the validity of schema theory as an explanation of the reading process.
Each of the hypotheses was supported (Symons and Pressley, 1993, pp. 256-257). Further, the effect of prior knowledge on the information locating ability of the students was domain-specific to psychology. Companion tests requiring the students to locate information related to earth science found no differences in the information locating abilities of students tested in September, January, and May.
The Symons and Pressley (1993, pp. 250-261) findings appear to provide clear and incontrovertible support for the validity of schema theory as an explanation for the reading process. "Without diminishing this cognitive perspective" of the process of reading, however, Frager (1993, p. 617) contended that the schema theory explanation of the reading process was not complete, and that "new understandings of prereading activities" may be gained "by looking at their affective dimensions." Frager (1993, p. 617) pointed out that "students' prior knowledge of content area
...