The Effects of Concept Mapping, Argument Mapping and Mind Mapping on 6th Graders’ Vocabulary Production

Flora Keysan, Vahid Norouzi Larsari

Abstract


As vocabulary is an important element in enhancing English knowledge, utilizing effective and novel vocabulary learning strategies help foster learners’ vocabulary production. The aim of this study is to present mapping techniques such as concept mapping, argument mapping, and mind mapping as innovative strategies to increase students’ vocabulary production. Several studies have been carried out on the impacts of concept mapping, argument mapping, and mind mapping techniques but there is no obvious comprehension of the supremacy of any of these strategies over the others. The present study investigated the impacts of the selected techniques on vocabulary production of 6th Graders. To this end, 90 female students (6th graders) studying in an English institute in Tehran, Iran were selected and categorized into three experimental groups. Each of these groups received one of the chosen techniques randomly. At the end of the instructional sessions, one post-test designed in fill-in-the-blanks format was performed to evaluate vocabulary production of the students. A One-Way ANOVA procedure was utilized to analyse the acquired results. The outcomes showed that the obtained differences between the groups of concept mapping, argument mapping and mind mapping were statistically significant. Those participants who used the concept mapping and mind mapping techniques performed better than their classmates of the argument mapping technique. It is worthy to note that learners, teachers, and materials’ designers can benefit from the findings of this study.

Keywords


Concept Mapping, Argument Mapping, Mind Mapping, Vocabulary Production, ANOVA

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, A. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum. Center for the Study of Reading, 570, 1-22.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary

development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57.

Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Olaf Stiller, J. (2009). Could mind maps be used to improve academic search engines? Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, II, 1-3.

Beel, J. & Langer, S. (2011). An exploratory analysis of mind maps. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Document Engineering. USA: California, Mountain View.

Bennett, B. & Rolheiser, C. (2001). Beyond Monet: The Artful Science of Instructional Integration, Spiral Edition. Retrieved February, 2023 from https://sentry.cliqueimudei.com

Carrington, M., Chen, R., Davies, M., Kaur, J. & Neville, B. (2011). The Effectiveness of a Single Intervention of Computer-Aided Argument Mapping in a Marketing and a Financial Accounting Subject. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), 1-5.

Dietrich, A. & Steiner, CH. (2005). Representing Domain Knowledge by Concept Maps: How to Validate Them? 2nd Joint Workshop of Cognition and Learning Through Media-Communication for Advanced e-Learning (JWCL), 169-174.

Douma, M., Ligierko, C., & Romano, J. (2009). Creating online mind maps and concept maps. 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Madison: Wisconsin. Retrieved on December 10, 2022 from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/ proceedings/09_20011.pdf

Gu, Y. (2010). Learning Strategies for Vocabulary Development. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 9(2), 105–118.

Kharatmal, M. & Nagarjuna, G. (2010). Introducing Rigor in Concept Maps. International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 199-202.

Khosravizadeh, P. & Mollaei, S. (2011). Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Semantic Field Approach BRAIN. Brain Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2(3), 20-28.

Mehring, J.G. (2005). Developing Vocabulary in Second Language Acquisition: From Theories to the Classroom. Retrieved on December 10, 2022 from http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej19/al.html

Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on December 10, 2022 from https://catdir.loc.gov

Novak, J. D., & Can˜as, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization Journal, 5(3), 175-184.

Patterson, F. (2007). Provoking students into thinking. COMPAK. Legal Studies, 1, 79-83.

Pishghadam, R. & Ghanizadeh, A. (2006). On the Impact of Concept Mapping As a Prewriting Activity on EFL Learners’ Writing Ability. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 103-130.

Schmitt, N. (2007). Chapter 50. Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on December 10, 2022 from https://researchgate.net

Sedita, J. (2005). Effective Vocabulary Instruction. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 33-45.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.11n.4p.20

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. 

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.