【正文】 ition. This conclusion especially explains why readers with good schema, yet low linguistic petence still fail to be fluent and skillful readers due to their constraint linguistic petence. The second issue worthy of discussing is about good readers and poor readers who are both linguistically proficient but weak at schema. What are the factors that classify them into two categories of being good or poor readers? Here, “weak at schema” can be reflected in two ways. One is that the readers totally lack the relevant schema, the other is that the schema may not be activated. Patricia L. Carell et al claims after studies that ESL reading prehension may be affected not because the ESL readers lack the appropriate schema. (Patricia L. Carell et al, 1988.). According to this judgement, we can conclude that the good readers are those who seek to use flexible reading strategies and skills in their reading activities to make association and activate their storage of schema using available information. These strategies may include flexible switch from bottomup to topdown or vice versa in time of need and make use of any available clues. The shift of processing mode helps to eliminate the difficulties in assigning meaning to the given text, which will initiate the activation of schema. Carell also notices that less skilled readers and poor readers tend to over rely on onedirection processes, for instance on the knowledge based or topdown processing (Patricia L. Carrell et al, 1988). Reading instruction for this type of poor readers should consist reading strategy instruction and training in order to fully effectuate their linguistic petence in the activation of schema. In conclusion, identifying the difficulties of the readers and the content level and type in regard to the readers is a primary step of purposeful instruction. Some preparations before reading in relation to schema theorySchema can be broadly defined as one’s general knowledge of the world organized in units, we can find that much of the schema of readers cannot be taught in the reading instruction, but can be acquired through understanding the various texts used as our reading materials that contain these knowledge. We have to bear in mind that the principal goal of reading instruction is to help the reader on how to read instead of teaching the literal contents of the text. So what left us to do in using schema theory in our instruction is to equip the readers some skills and knowledge in using schema theory in their reading.a) Understanding the formal schemataCarell (1983) draws a distinction between formal schemata and content schemata. Here, in this part we attempt to discuss the formal schemata, since this is something we can do to prepare the readers some knowledge about the text organization. According to Carell, formal schemata means the background knowledge of the formal rhetorical organizationl structure of different types of texts (fable, expository text, story, scientific text, poetry, news etc.) As we know, each type of the texts has its particular organization and style features. A knowledge of these will engage the readers in appropriate formal schema before reading or facilitate reading by constraining the reader in a particular suitable strategy to other less efficient processing for reading a particular type of text. The formal knowledge can be instructed before the reading program begins. The features of each of the types can bedisplayed with sample texts or explained directly by the teacher. Another way found effective for the readers to get acquainted with the features of the types is to display the sample texts of each of the types at the same time. Instead of explaining, the teacher can ask the readers to make parisons to find out the differences between one type and another and make judgement themselves.b) Understanding some truth about writing The instruction of this topic seems to have something in mon with the reading strategy instruction. It does. In the application of schema theory in reading, the reader’s abilities of inference and making association are of crucial in successful prehension. Readers should be made aware through analysis of sample texts of the fact that the writer does not express everything he means, that the words or sentences may be deliberately employed not to convey their literal meaning, and that the writer may not provide sufficient clues and information. In such situation, the conventional preclass activities like background introduction, prediction based on topic and illustrations and preclass discussion may produce limited effect in obtaining coherent understanding of the intersentential meaning. So in this issue, the readers should be guided, again with sample texts to be alert to discover the underlying meaning of texts instead of wrestling only with the literal expressions. Readers have to be made known that they are responsible for filling out the messages not explicitly stated, interpreting the text seemingly absurd and inconsistent with the context. All these have to be made out by making inference with both their linguistic knowledge and locating the schema unit for the particular parts or the text. Besides, they should be instructed to constantly check or monitor their understanding. By “understanding”, we mean a prehension of not only local individual details, but also a coherent understanding of the whole text. This can be achieved in reading class by, for example, asking the successful readers to present or report how a prehension is solved, how the thinking process happens or what knowledge he resorts to. Some technique in using schema theory in reading instructionAs Carrell (1983) mentioned that prehension inefficiency is not because the readers lack the appropriate schema, but because they fail to activate the appropriate schema. What a teacher of reading should concentrate on is to design suitable classroom activities to help readers locate