The Effect of Individually-Generated, Teacher-Generated, and Cooperatively-Generated Graphic Organizers on Intermediate EFL Students' Vocabulary Knowledge
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی
منصوره
مجاوریان
1
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد اردبیل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اردبیل، ایران)
حسین
سیاه پوش
2
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد اردبیل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اردبیل، ایران)
مهران
داوری بینا
3
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد اردبیل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اردبیل، ایران)
Keywords: vocabulary knowledge, graphic organizer, intentional vocabulary learning,
Abstract :
Although previous studies have shown the benefits of graphic organizers in improving learners' vocabulary knowledge, scant attention has been paid to the possible differences in the effect of individually-developed, cooperatively-developed, and teacher-developed graphic organizers on intermediate L2 learners' vocabulary knowledge. The present study addressed this topic by examining 80 intermediate language learners. The participants were selected based on convenience sampling procedure and studied English in four classes. The learners in the conventional group received the translation/definition of the lexical items. Those in the teacher-generated were provided with the graphic organizers prepared by their teacher, and the participants in the other two groups made the graphic organizers either individually or cooperatively. The researchers employed Vocabulary Knowledge Scale as the pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test to examine the participants' vocabulary knowledge. The findings of this study indicated that the mean scores of the control group in the immediate and delayed post-tests were significantly lower than those of all graphic organizer groups. In addition, the cooperatively-generated graphic organizer group was significantly more successful than learner and teacher-generated graphic organizer groups, but there was no difference between the learner and teacher-generated groups.
Ajayi, L. (2018). Teaching/developing vocabulary using graphic organizers and modeling. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-12). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Al-Hinnawi, A. N. (2012). The effect of the graphic organizer strategy on university students' English vocabulary building. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 62-69.
Alashry, S. A. A.-N., Qoura, A. A.-S., & Gohar, R. H. A.-A. (2019). The Impact of Frayer Model and contextual redefinition strategy on Improving preparatory stage pupils' vocabulary learning. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction and Educational Technology, 4(4), 11-36.
Baylor, A. L., Lee, Y., & Nelson, D. W. (2005). Supporting problem-solving performance through the construction of knowledge maps. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 117-131.
Buchanan, E. (2015). Using graphic organizers to enhance students' science vocabulary and comprehension of nonfiction science text. Ph. D. Thesis.
Caviglioli, O. (2019). Dual coding for teachers. John Catt Educational.
Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2020). Effects of self‐generated graphic organizers on learning depend on in‐task guidance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 646-655.
Cuevas, J., & Dawson, B. L. (2018). A test of two alternative cognitive processing models: Learning styles and dual coding. Theory and Research in Education, 16(1), 40-64.
Cunningham, S., Moor, P., & Bygrave, J. (2013). Cutting edge: Intermediate. Pearson.
Duyen, H. T. M. (2020). The effects of mind mapping on teaching and learning vocabulary retention. In L. H. K. Laws, & C. Wescombe (Ed.), Professional learning: Developing educational professionals in Southeast Asia (pp. 88-95). University of Sydney.
Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2).
Ellis, E., & Howard, P. (2007). Graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Current Practice Alerts,13(1),, 1-4
Ender, A. (2016). Implicit and explicit cognitive processes in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 536-560.
Feruza, S., Aziza, A., & Nilufar, J. (2020). Interactive Learning in the medical English classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(5), 1997-2004.
Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2017). Making sense of learner performance on tests of productive vocabulary knowledge. tesol QUARTERLY, 51(4), 844-867.
Gadallah, E. I. A. (2020). Investigating strategies of using semantic mapping for developing vocabulary learning Sudan University of Science and Technology].
González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition. In S. L. M. Sato (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 280-298). Routledge.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Incidental learning in second language acquisition. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 5, 2632-2640.
Joyce, P. (2018). L2 vocabulary learning and testing: The use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 217-227.
Kanellopoulou, C., Kermanidis, K. L., & Giannakoulopoulos, A. (2019). The dual-coding and multimedia learning theories: Film subtitles as a vocabulary teaching tool. . Education Sciences, 9(3), 1-13.
Karimi, M., Ghorbanchian, E., Chalak, A., & Tabrizi, H. H. . (2020). Instructional scaffolding with graphic organizers to improve EFL learners' listening comprehension and incidental vocabulary acquisition. Elixir Social Science, 149(1), 50-60.
Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119-133.
Keshavarz, M. H., Ataei, M., & MOSSAHEBI, M. S. (2006). The effect of semantic mapping strategy instruction on vocabulary learning of intermediate EFL students. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 1(1), 149-176.
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of educational psychology, 98(4), 902-913.
Liu, P.-L. (2016). Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 128-141.
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(2), 436-445.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Minaabad, M.S. (2017). Study of the Effect of Dynamic Assessment and Graphic Organizers on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 548–555.
Nation, P. (2001). How Good Is Your Vocabulary Program. ESL Magazine, 4(3), 22-24.
Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 100-107.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
Oliver, K. (2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 402-414.
Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Routledge.
Paivio, A. (2014). Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence, 47, 141-158.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada journal, 11(1), 09-29.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.
Ridho, M. (2020). The influence of using graphic organizer towards students’ vocabulary mastery at the seventh grade of junior high school of Assafina Bandar Lampung in the academic year 2018/2019 UIN Raden Intan Lampung].
Rusanganwa, J. A. (2015). Developing a multimedia instrument for technical vocabulary learning: A case of EFL undergraduate physics education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(2), 97-111.
Saeidi, M., & Atmani, S. (2010). Teaching vocabulary through semantic mapping as a pre-reading activity across genders. Journal of English Studies, 1(1), 51-64.
Shepherd, C. E., & Bolliger, D. U. (2011). The effects of electronic portfolio tools on online students' perceived support and cognitive load. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 142-149.
Shoari, E., & Farrokhi, F. (2014). The effects of graphic organizer strategy on improving iranian efl learners’ vocabulary learning. Research in English language pedagogy,2(1), 71-82
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Educational psychology. Allyn & Bacon.
Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577-607.
Stamper, J. B. (2006). Vocabulary-building: Graphic organizers & mini-lessons. Scholastic.
Stewart, J., Batty, A. O., & Bovee, N. (2012). Comparing multidimensional and continuum models of vocabulary acquisition: An empirical examination of the vocabulary knowledge scale. tesol QUARTERLY, 46(4), 695-721.
Thornbury, S. (2006). How to teach vocabulary. Pearson Education India.
Zahedi, Y., & Abdi, M. (2012). The effect of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2273-2280.