Effective Reading Comprehension in EFL Contexts: Individual and Collaborative Concept Mapping Strategies

Zahra Riahi, Natasha Pourdana

Abstract


The present study attempted to investigate the possible impacts of Individual Concept Mapping (ICM) and Collaborative Concept Mapping (CCM) strategies on Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension. For this purpose, 90 pre-intermediate female language learners ranged between 12 to 17 years of age were selected to randomly assign into ICM, CCM and Control groups in this study. After taking Key English Test (KET), the ICM and CCM groups received EFL reading materials presented and practiced with ICM and CCM strategies, respectively, while the Control group received only conventional instructions to reading comprehension. After conducting the treatment, all participants took a Concept Mapping post-test constructed by the researchers. The hypothetical assumptions in this study were in favor of ICM and CCM strategies to improve the Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Statistics supported the outperformance of the ICM and CCM groups comparing to Control group who received convention PPP teaching techniques on Concept Mapping post-test. However, the superiority of neither strategies was statistically proved so that no meaningful difference between the reading comprehension of the ICM and CCM groups were detected. Therefore, the researchers failed to determine which strategy caused a better or higher impact. Some pedagogical implications and recommended topics for further research were provided to the motivated researchers.


Keywords


Collaborative concept mapping, individual concept mapping, reading comprehension, EFL, cooperative learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, pp. 460-472.

Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning. Prentice Hall, London.

Broggy, J. (2009). What is Concept Mapping and how can it be introduced into a second level science classroom? Projects Officer in Teaching and Learning (Science) NCE-MSTL. Vol. 1(3), pp. 34-40.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert& R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding pp. 65-116. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bunner, T. L. (2002). Content area learning strategies to improve the learning of second language learners. Unpublished Master’s project, California State University, Sacramento.

Carrell, P.L. (1983). Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Language learning and communication, (2), pp. 25-34.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, (11), pp. 671–684.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, (14), pp. 136-141.

Esiobu, G. O., &Soyibo, K. (1995). Effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), pp. 971-995.

Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 563- 580.

Farhady, H. (2005). Reflections on and directions for ESP materials development in SAMT, in Kiani&Khayamdar (Eds.) Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference, vol. 3 , Tehran, SAMT Publication.

Fraser, K. M. (1993). Theory Based use of concept mapping in organization development: Creating shared understanding as a basis for the cooperative design of work changes and changes in working relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). Cornell University.

Gao, H. (2007). The Effects of Key Concepts Availability and Individual Preparation in the form of Proposition Formation in Collaborative Concept Mapping on Learning, Problem Solving, and Learner Attitudes. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations.

Gao, H. (2013). Knowledge Construction in Collaborative Concept Mapping: A Case Study. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education Vol. (2). pp. 78-89.

Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education. pp. 356-365.

Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K. W. K., &Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3/4), pp. 315-333.

Hilbert, T. S., &Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, (36), pp. 53–73. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11251-007-9022-9

Horton, P.B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J. & Hamelin, D. (1993) 'An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Concept Mapping as an Instructional Tool', Science Education, 77(1), pp. 95-111.

Kumar, A. (2012). Does constructivist approach applicable through concept maps to achieve meaningful learning in Science? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching.

Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54 (2010), pp. 436-445.

Mason, C. L. (1992). Concept mapping: a tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76(1), pp. 51-56.

McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., &Suen, H.K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (36), pp. 475-492.

Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. and Novak, J. (1998). Teaching Science for Understanding. San Diego: Academic Press.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1999). Aprender an aprender. Lisboa: Plátano Edições Técnicas.

Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), pp. 548-571.

Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them, [technical report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01]. Florida: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching Reading Skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann.

Okebukola, P. A & Ogunniyi, M. B (1984). Cooperative, competitive and individualistic laboratory interaction patterns: Effects on achievement and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (9), pp. 198-206.

O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp. 285-296.

Oxford, R. L. (1990) language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. New York, Newbury House.

Park, S. (1995). Implications of learning strategy research for designing computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25 (4), pp. 435–456.

Pierce C.A., Block, C.A. &Aguinis, H. (2004). Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(6).

Rashtchi, M. & Keyvanfar, A. (2010). ELT: Quick 'n' Easy. Tehran: Rahnama Press.

Rauch, S.J. & Weinstein, A. B. (1968). Mastering Reading Skills. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.

Shankar, P. (2008). Teaching of English. New Delhi: APH.

Shaw, H. (1959). Expository Reading for Writers. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Skidmore, L. (2008). Concept Mapping to Promote Meaningful Learning at the Community College Level. In L. Skidmore, Concept Mapping to Promote Meaningful Learning at the Community College Level (pp. 189).

Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. L., &Kanselaar, G. (1997). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and poster task. Journal ofInteractive Learning Research, 8 (3–4), pp. 341–361.

Van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. L., Roelofs, E., &Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), pp. 40-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_7

Weinstein, C. E. (1988). Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. New York: Academic Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.1p.51

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.