Reading comprehension is a process involves not only a reader’s linguistic knowledge of the target language but also knowledge of the world of that language. Nuttall (1996) as cited in Pratami (2011) believes that reading comprehension is a process of activating the knowledge of the word combined with the appropriate cognitive skill and reasoning ability to get ideas from the print. That is, the transfer of a message from writer to reader.

Studying the sources of the reading and comprehension difficulties and finding instruments to solve reading comprehension problems, was an issue of concern to scholars. For example, Haynes (1989: p. 11) contributes that “to help second language readers comprehend English text quickly and accurately, language teachers need a good understanding of where reading difficulties are apt to occur and what can be done in the short and long run to help students overcome these difficulties”. “Second” language and “foreign” language are two terms used interchangeably in this study though a clear-cut distinction is made between them. Yazigy (1991: p. 11) says that “A second language is spoken by the community outside the classroom and has social functions within that community “while a “foreign language…is limited to classroom study and used for contact outside the community”.

The concept of schema (plural: schemata) was coined and used by scholars in various fields of knowledge such as linguistics, cognitive psychology, and psycholinguistics (Cook 1994). The history of schema goes back to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In the 1930s the term schema was used in the literary theory when Ingarden confirmed the existence of a level of “schematized aspects” in literature. In cognitive psychology, Bartlett (1932) describes “schema” as “an active organization of past reactions [or] of past experiences, which must always be supposed to be operating in any well-adapted organic response” (p. 201). In Artificial Intelligence, Minsky (1975) defines schema as “frames” to account for the “mental constructs of knowledge derived from an individual. Rumelhart (1980), Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) and Hudson (1982) used the term schema in reading to indicate the essential role played by the reader’s background knowledge in understanding reading comprehension. Rumelhart (1980: p. 34) describes schema as “a data structure for representing the generic concepts stored in memory”. Rumelhart’s definition determines that there is no readymade knowledge, ideas or events stored in the reader’s memory recalls it at any time he wants, but rather general concepts or forms.

The literature proposes that the schematic factors have fundamental and essential impact not only on ESL/EFL students’ reading comprehension, but also on their rate of reading speed since most EFL students tend to slow down and reread what they do not comprehend.

Schema or prior knowledge is “considered in current reading research as a crucial and a significant factor in ESL reading comprehension” Nelson (1987: p. 404). Scarcella and Oxford (1992) stress that “…lack of schemata or familiar to activate an appropriate schema can significantly impair comprehension” (p. 69). According to schema theory, the text itself does not carry meaning rather it provides directions for readers as how they should construct meaning from their own previously acquired knowledge, or background knowledge.

No doubt that schema or background knowledge plays a major role in reading and understanding. In the L1 or L2 context, readers’ failure to respond to a given text is for a high degree referred to their lack of an appropriate schema that can easily fit within the content of the text. Missing of an appropriate schema can be due to one or more types of schema. Schema which is connected to reading is classified by Li et al. (2007) into three main types: linguistic schemata, formal schemata, linguistic and content schemata.

The first types of schemata are the ones which are called linguistic schemata. According to (Nassaji, 2002; Oller, 1995 cited in Erten and Razi, 2009), linguistic schemata refer to reader’s existing language proficiency in vocabulary, grammar and idioms. These types of schemata play an essential role in the comprehension of the text. They help the reader decode and comprehend the codes of the text. Therefore, the more linguistic schemata a reader has in his mind, the faster the reader acquires information and the better understanding the reader may get.

The second type schemata is described by (Alderson, 2000; Carrell, 1987; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983) as knowledge of language and linguistic conventions, containing knowledge of how texts are structured and what the key characteristics of a particular genre of writing are. They include what a reader knows about written texts, such as what is covered in text grammars or text linguistics predict what is likely to follow. Carrell (1987: p. 464) cited in Erten and Razi (2009) mentions that “texts with familiar rhetorical organization should be easier to read and comprehend than texts with unfamiliar rhetorical organization”.

Content cultural schemata is the third type. Brown (2001) cited in Erten and Razi (2009) refers to Content cultural schemata as the background knowledge of the content area of a text, or the subject. This knowledge can be about people, the world, culture, and the universe. Olaofe and Masembe (2006) believe that content schemata is the familiarity of the subject matter of the text. It contains understanding of the topic of the text and the cultural-specific constituents required to interpret it. This type of schemata (Content schemata) is divided into two different types: background knowledge and subject matter knowledge. Background knowledge refers to the knowledge that may or may not be relevant to the content of a particular text, whereas the subject matter knowledge directly related to the text content and topic (Alderson, 2000 cited in Erten and Razi, 2009). Similarly, content schema is an element of the individual’s cultural orientation, and while culture influences all aspects of life, it undoubtedly has a major impact on all components of learning process (Al-Issa, 2006). Various studies show that readers’ content schemata influence their reading comprehension more greatly than formal schemata. On the whole, the familiarity of the topic has a direct influence on readers’ comprehension. The more the reader knows about the topic, the more easily and quickly he gets the information of the text. Therefore, if one wants to be an efficient reader, he needs to try to know the knowledge about more fields and topics. Learners with more prior knowledge can better comprehend and remember the text more (Yule, 1996: p. 87). Cultural schema brings about cultural familiarity and helps a person to restructure the story line through referring to more personally and culturally appropriate scripts (Oller, 1995 cited in Erten and Razi, 2009). To interpret a text, suitable culture schemata is considered to be essential. As previously mentioned, schemata involve various knowledge structures which include culture, beliefs, expectations, values, and other past experiences which are used to comprehend the nature of things and events. Culturally specific schemata affect comprehension (Kaplan, 1966). According to Kaplan, cultural differences lead to different approaches to teaching reading to first language speakers and second language speakers. The significance of cultural knowledge lies behind the fact that, for any reader to comprehend any writing written in a language which is not his mother tongue such as humor, knowledge of the culture of the target language must be taken into consideration.

Research on types of schema has shown that background knowledge or cultural schema plays an important role in affecting ESL reading comprehension than formal schema (Carrell, 1987; Floyd & Carrell, 1987). Grabe (1991) reports that “content background knowledge has a major influence on reading comprehension” (p. 381). Steffensen, Joag-Dev and Anderson (1979) confirm that “implicit cultural knowledge presupposed by the text and the reader’s own cultural background interact to make texts based on one’s own culture easier to read and understand than syntactically and rhetorically equivalent text based on less familiar, more distant cultures” (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988: p. 80).

In Carrell (1981) advanced Japanese and Chinese ESL students were compared on recall of folktales from three different cultural sources: native culture (Japanese and Chinese), second culture (Western European/English), and completely unfamiliar culture (American Apache Indian). The findings of the study showed that the cultural origin of the text and the subject’s prior familiarly with it, affected the ESL subjects’ judgment of the level of difficulty of the texts as well as their recall of information from the text.

Johnson (1981a) conducted a study on Iranian intermediate to advanced level ESL students and American students. Participants were asked to read Iranian and American folktales in English. Subjects were tested on their reading comprehension through use of multiple-choice questions on explicit and implicit information in the texts. The findings indicated that Iranians performed better on the text from their native culture than on a text from American culture. He concluded that prior background knowledge of culture, specific information presupposed by a text affects reading comprehension of that text. More specifically, in Johnson’s (1981b) study the results indicated that the cultural origin of the text has a greater effect on ESL reading comprehension than does linguistic complexity.

Egyptian students were also subjected to a study by Nelson (1987). The study found that students recall significantly more when reading passages from their own culture and that they usually prefer the articles and stories from their culture. She concluded that “culture as a component of knowledge and experience is a crucial factor in reading comprehension” (p. 424).

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the impact of cultural schema on the Saudi secondary school students in reading comprehension.

The study aimed to achieve the following objectives:

1) To explore the difference between the target language cultural background and the native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students.

2) To explore the effect of the native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students reading and comprehension.

3) To suggest some strategies and activities for the Saudi EFL teachers to help activate their schemata when they read something about the culture of the English language.

1) The native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students can affect their reading and comprehension.

2) There is statistical difference between the target language cultural background and the native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students.

3) There are reading comprehension strategies and activities English language teachers can apply to enhance and improve the students’ level of reading and comprehension.

The population of the study is limited to the Saudi secondary school students studying at Imam Ja’far Al Sadiq secondary school in Al-Ahsa Educational Zone. This school is taken as representation to the other Saudi secondary schools. Secondary schools were thought to be convenient to conduct this study because the English language courses there contain different reading comprehension topics of which some were from the Saudi local culture and the others were from the foreign language culture. The study was conducted during the second semester of the academic year (2018/2019) and the sample of the study was chosen randomly from the first to the third-year students. Thirty-two participants were asked to respond to a 20-item-questionnaire. The data were gathered and analyzed for the purpose of the study.

To achieve the goal of the study, thirty-two secondary school students at Imam Ja’far AlSadiq Secondary School were randomly chosen to participate in the study. The sample was chosen from the first to the third-year secondary school students. Their academic levels range from high to middle to low level. They share multiple characteristics in common. For example, they are homogeneous in terms of nationality (Saudi students), age (16 - 19), gender (male), native language (Arabic), and cultural background (Saudi local culture).

The data for the study were collected by means of a 20-item closed ended questionnaire. Thirty-two participants were asked to respond to the questionnaires’ items. The questionnaire in this study was used due to the fact that during Corona Virus Pandemic (the time the study was conducted) students were studying distantly which made it difficult to directly contact the students to use any other direct method of investigation for data collection.

This section aims at presenting, analyzing, and discussing the data obtained by the questionnaire. It also explains the efficiency and the purpose of the tool, achieving its goals in accepting or rejecting the hypotheses of the study through the following analysis. For the data analysis, the study used the statistical package for social studies (SPSS). It also used frequencies, percentages, descriptive statistics, standard deviation and mean. Cronbach’s Alpha and one sample T test were used to calculate the questionnaire’s validity and reliability.

In Joppe (2000: p. 1) “Validity is determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit the “the bull’s eye” of research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look the answers in the research of the others”.

Joppe (2000: p. 1) views reliability as “the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable” (see Table 1 & Table 2) for the questionnaire’s validity and reliability.

Table 1 shows that the alpha value of all variables is less than the total value of Cronbach’s Alpha, which is equal to 0.842, which confirms that the stability of the questionnaire questions is very high. Also, the value of the total validity coefficient, which is equal to approximately 92%, also indicates the high sincerity of the questions, which confirms the efficiency of the questionnaire and its ability to fulfill the required fixed and honest results.

The first column of Table 2 shows that the values of Cronbach’s Alpha for each statement of the questionnaire are less than 0.842, which indicates that the questionnaire’s is reliable. The second column shows the values of the validity

coefficient, which is also strong because they are all greater than 0.50 This indicates the level of sincerity of the questionnaire’s questions and confirms the efficiency and the ability of these questions to meet the required objectives and results of the study.

After the collection of the questionnaire responses, the participants’ responses were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science program (SPSS). The gathered data were analyzed. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages of the participants’ responses were used to obtain the required results. Independent (t) test and means were also used to achieve the objectives of the study.

Item (6) of Table 3 indicates that more that (80%) of the participants face in reading English as a foreign language. This difficulty may be attributed to the

difficulty they face when they read something written about the culture of the target language. More than (88%) of the participants think that they do not feel comfortable when they read in English something written about the culture of the English people. More than (88.5%) believe it is easier for them to read something relating to their Saudi local culture than to read something relating to the target language culture. This result confirms the first hypothesis.

Table 4 shows that the sample size N (32) has a mean of 54.8125 and a standard deviation of 9.35824. Table 5 shows the arithmetic means and standard deviation of the study variables

In Table 6 the value which is less than 0.05, is significant and the one which is greater than 0.05, is insignificant.

Table 7 shows that the value of (t) test is 2.909 with the value of freedom of (df) 31 and sig (2-tailed) of 0.007 is less than 0.05. This indicates that there are statistically significant differences in the English cultural background of the secondary school students. These differences are in favour of the opinions of the students because the differences between the means are positive.

The fist hypothesis states that the native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students can affect their reading and comprehension. Item (6) of Table 3 indicates that more that (80%) of the participants face difficulty in reading English as a foreign language. This difficulty may be attributed to the difficulty they face when they read something written about the culture of the target language. More than (88%) say they do not feel comfortable when they read in English something written about the culture of the English people. More than (885%) think it is easier for them to read something relating to their local Saudi culture than to read something relating to the foreign culture.

The second hypothesis sates that there is statistical difference between the target language cultural background and the native language cultural background of the Saudi secondary school students.

Table 7 shows that the value of (t) test is 2.909 with the value of freedom of (df) 31 and sig (2-tailed) of 0.007 less than 0.05. This indicates that there are statistically significant differences in the English cultural background of the secondary school students. These differences are in favour of the responses of the

students to the questionnaire items because the differences between the means are positive.