Effects of two forms of concept mapping on L2 reading comprehension and strategy awareness

Ehsan Rassaei

doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0006

Article

Effects of two forms of concept mapping on L2 reading comprehension and strategy awareness

Ehsan Rassaei

Published/Copyright: October 25, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Applied Linguistics Review Volume 10 Issue 2

Abstract

The present study investigates the effects of two concept mapping strategies, guided concept mapping and concept map correction, on second language (L2) reading comprehension during eight instructional sessions. The study also aims to examine the effects of these concept mapping techniques on learners’ awareness of other reading strategies. The participants included 56 intermediate level Persian EFL learners enrolled in three intact EFL classrooms. The three intact classes were designated as two experimental groups and one control condition. Learners in one experimental group were asked to do guided concept mapping by reading a text in each session and completing a partially filled concept map of the text afterwards. The participants of the second experimental group were provided with a similar text in each session along with its concept map in which some concepts were wrongly incorporated and were asked to revise the concept map. Participants of the control group were asked to read the same texts without doing any concept mapping activity. Reading comprehension pre- and post-tests and a strategy awareness questionnaire were used as dependent measures. Analysis of the participants’ post-test comprehension scores revealed that both concept mapping techniques were effective for promoting the participants’ reading comprehension skill. Meanwhile, the results indicated that map correction was more effective than guided concept mapping for promoting reading comprehension. The findings also revealed that drawing concept maps enhances learners’ awareness of other reading strategies.

Keywords: concept mapping; reading comprehension; metacognition; reading strategies; strategy awareness

References

Aghaie, Reza & Lawrence June Zhang. 2012. Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science 40(6). 1063–1081.10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5Search in Google Scholar

Akkakoson, Songyut. 2013. The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student learning of L2‐based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal of Research in Reading 36(4). 422–450.10.1111/jrir.12004Search in Google Scholar

Amer, Aly Anwar. 1994. The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the reading comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes 13(1). 35–45.10.1016/0889-4906(94)90023-XSearch in Google Scholar

Anderson, Neil J. 2008. Active skills for reading, Book 3, Boston: Thomson Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Linda & Ann. L. Brown. 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (ed.), Handbook of reading research, 353–394. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Bimmel, Peter E., Huub Van Den Bergh & Ron J. Oostdam. 2001. Effects of strategy training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European Journal of Psychology of Education 16(4). 509–529.10.1007/BF03173195Search in Google Scholar

Boyle, Joseph R. 1996. The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 19(2). 86–98.10.2307/1511250Search in Google Scholar

Carrell, Patricia L. 1989. Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal 73. 121–134.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.xSearch in Google Scholar

Carrell, Patricia L., Becky Pharis & Joseph Liberto. 1989. Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 23(4). 647–678.10.2307/3587536Search in Google Scholar

Chamot, Anna., Sara Barnhardt, Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Jill Robbins. 1999. The Learning strategies handbook. White plains, NY: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Chamot, Anna & Pamela Beard El-Dinary 1999. Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 83(3). 319–338.10.1111/0026-7902.00025Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Kuo En, Yao-Ting Sung & Ine Dai Chen. 2002. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(1). 5–23.10.1080/00220970209602054Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Kuo En., Yao-Ting Sung & Sung-Fang Chen. 2001. Learning through computer‐based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17(1). 21–33.10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.xSearch in Google Scholar

Chularut, Pasana & Teresa K. DeBacker. 2004. The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(3). 248–263.10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.001Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Andrew D. 1990. Language learning. New York: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Dabarera, Carrol, Willy A. Renandya & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2014. The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System 42. 462–473.10.1016/j.system.2013.12.020Search in Google Scholar

Dowhower, Sara L. 1999. Supporting a strategic stance in the classroom: A comprehension framework for helping teachers help students to be strategic. The Reading Teacher 52. 672–688.Search in Google Scholar

Erler, Lynn & Claudia Finkbeiner. 2007. A review of reading strategies: Focus on the impact of first language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (eds.), Language learner strategies, 187–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gagné, Nathalie & Susan Parks. 2013. Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research 17(2). 188–209.10.1177/1362168812460818Search in Google Scholar

Grabe, William. 2009. Reading in a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Grabe, William & Fredricka. L. Stoller 2011. Teaching and researching reading. (2nd ed.) Harlow, England: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Graesser, Arthur C. 2007. An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara(ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 3–26. New York: Lawrence Erlbum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Guastello, E. Francine, Beasley T. Mark & Richard C. Sinatra 2000. Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education 21(6). 356–364.10.1177/074193250002100605Search in Google Scholar

Guk, Iju & David Kellogg. 2007. The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research 11(3). 281–299.10.1177/1362168807077561Search in Google Scholar

Gürses, Meral Özkan & Eric Bouvet. 2016. Investigating reading comprehension and learning styles in relation to reading strategies in L2. Reading in a Foreign Language 28(1). 20–42.Search in Google Scholar

Horton, Phillip B., Andrew A. McConney, Michael Gallo, Amanda L Woods, Gary J. Senn & Denis Hamelin.1993. An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education 77. 95–111.10.1002/sce.3730770107Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Denise & Virginia Steele. 1996. So many words, so little time: Helping college ESL learners acquire vocabulary-building strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 39(5). 348–357.Search in Google Scholar

Kendeou, Panayiota, Paul Van Den Broek, Mary Jane White & Julie Lynch. 2007. Comprehension in preschool and early elementary children: Skill development and strategy interventions. In Danielle. S. McNamara (ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, 27–46. New York: Lawrence Erlbum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Krashen, Stephan. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal 73. 440–464.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.xSearch in Google Scholar

Lee, Linda & Erik Gundersen. 2001. Select readings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lehtonen, Tuula. 2000. Awareness of strategies is not enough: How learners can give each other the confidence to use them. Language Awareness 9(2). 64–77.10.1080/09658410008667138Search in Google Scholar

Lenhard, Wolfgang, Herbert Baier, Darius Endlich, Wolfgang Schneider & Joachim Hoffmann. 2013. Rethinking strategy instruction: direct reading strategy instruction versus computer‐based guided practice. Journal of Research in Reading 36(2). 223–240.10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01505.xSearch in Google Scholar

Liu, Pei-Lin. 2016. Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy. Language Learning & Technology 20(1). 128–140.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Pei-Lin, Chiu-Jung Chen & Yu-Ju Chang. 2010. Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education 54(2). 436–445.10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.027Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Shih-Hwa & Gwo-Guang Lee. 2013. Using a concept map knowledge management system to enhance the learning of biology. Computers & Education 68. 105–116.10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.007Search in Google Scholar

Macaro, E. 2001. Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Macaro, Ernesto & Lynn Erler. 2008. Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics 29(1). 90–119.10.1093/applin/amm023Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Beniko & Stephen Krashen. 1997. Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System 25. 91–102.10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00063-2Search in Google Scholar

Mokhtari, Kouider & Carla A. Reichard. 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(2). 249–259.10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249Search in Google Scholar

Morin, Regina & Joseph Goebel. 2001. Basic vocabulary instruction: Teaching strategies or teaching words? Foreign Language Annals 34(1). 8–17.10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02797.xSearch in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein & Merrill Swain. 2000. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9(1). 34–51.10.1080/09658410008667135Search in Google Scholar

Novak, Joseph D. & Alberto J. Cañas. 2008. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, technical report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.Search in Google Scholar

Ojima, Maki. 2006. Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System 34(4). 566–585.10.1016/j.system.2006.08.003Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, Kevin. 2009. An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18(5). 402–414.10.1007/s10956-009-9157-3Search in Google Scholar

Phakiti, Aek. 2003. A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing 20(1). 26–5610.1191/0265532203lt243oaSearch in Google Scholar

Pressley, Michael. 2000. What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (eds.). Handbook of reading research, 545–562. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Rassaei, Ehsan. 2014. Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal 98(1). 417–431.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12060.xSearch in Google Scholar

Reutzel, D. Ray, John A. Smith & Parker C. Fawson.2005. An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20(3) 276–305.10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, Joan, Anna Uhl Chamot, Vee Harris & Neil J. Anderson. 2007. Intervening in the use of strategies. In Andrew. D. Cohen & Ernesto Macaro. (eds.). Language learner strategies, 1–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sheorey, Ravi & Kouider Mokhtari. 2001. Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System 29(4). 431–449.10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2Search in Google Scholar

Singhal, Meena. 2001. Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix 1(1). 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Tajeddin, Zia & Soudabeh Tabatabaei. 2016. Concept Mapping as a Reading Strategy: Does It Scaffold Comprehension and Recall? The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 16(1). 194–208.Search in Google Scholar

Taki, Saeed. 2016. Metacognitive online reading strategy use: Readers’ perceptions in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading 39(4). 409–427.10.1111/1467-9817.12048Search in Google Scholar

Van Compernolle, Rémi A. & Lawrence Williams. 2012. Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research 16(1). 39–60.10.1177/1362168811423340Search in Google Scholar

Wegmann, Brenda & Miki Prijic Knezevic. 2002. Mosaic 1. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Lillian LC & David Nunan. 2011. The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System 39(2). 144–163.10.1016/j.system.2011.05.004Search in Google Scholar

Wood, David, Jerome S. Bruner & Gail Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17(2). 89–100.10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.xSearch in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun. 2010. A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly 44 (2). 320–353.10.5054/tq.2010.223352Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Aijiao Wu 2009. Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language 21(1). 37–59.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

A The survey of reading strategies (SORS) (Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001)

Directions: the following statements indicate what people do when they are reading academic materials such as a textbook or a library book. There are 5 numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) following each statement meaning the following:

1 means “I never or almost never do this.”

2 means “I do this only occasionally.”

3 means “I sometimes do this” (about 50% of the time).

4 means “I usually do this.”

5 means “I always or almost always do this.”

After carefully reading each statement, circle the number that applies to you. Please note that there is no right or wrong answer for each of the following statements.

1.	I have a purpose in mind when I read.	1 2 3 4 5
2.	I take notes while reading to help me understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
3.	I think about what I know to help me understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
4.	I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it.	1 2 3 4 5
5.	When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
6.	I think about whether the content of the text fits my purpose.	1 2 3 4 5
7.	I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
8.	I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization.	1 2 3 4 5
9.	I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.	1 2 3 4 5
10.	I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.	1 2 3 4 5
11.	I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
12.	I decide what to read closely and what to ignore.	1 2 3 4 5
13.	I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
14.	When text becomes difficult, I begin to pay closer attention to what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
15.	I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding.	1 2 3 4 5
16.	I stop from time to time to think about what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
17.	I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
18.	I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
19.	I try to picture or visualize information to help me remember what I’m reading.	1 2 3 4 5
20.	I use typographical aids like boldface type and italics to identify key information.	1 2 3 4 5
21.	I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text.	1 2 3 4 5
22.	I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it.	1 2 3 4 5
23.	I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information.	1 2 3 4 5
24.	I try to guess what the text is about when reading.	1 2 3 4 5
25.	When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my understanding.	1 2 3 4 5
26.	I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text.	1 2 3 4 5
27.	I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong.	1 2 3 4 5
28.	I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases.	1 2 3 4 5

Published Online: 2017-10-25

Published in Print: 2019-05-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0006

Keywords for this article

concept mapping; reading comprehension; metacognition; reading strategies; strategy awareness