Differential Semantic Mapping Modes and EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning and Retention
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
سید ناصر موسوی
1
(
Department of English, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
)
زهره سیفوری
2
(
Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
)
کلید واژه: vocabulary learning, Vocabulary Retention, Lexical Relations, Personal Word Connections, Semantic Mapping Strategies,
چکیده مقاله :
While teaching vocabulary, it is crucial to consider the facilitative role of various techniques that may intensify and promote memory strategies required for meaningful learning and long-term retention. The present study aimed to compare the effect of three semantic mapping strategies of Word Relationship (WR), Lexical Relations and Definition (LRD), and Personal Word Connections (PWC) on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning and retention. To this end, 120 intermediate EFL learners were assigned to three contrast groups and a control group, each with 30 participants who were randomly assigned to three WR, LRDG, and PWC experimental groups and a control group who attended the treatment two sessions a week for four weeks in which the vocabulary was presented via the three semantic differential modes. The control group received no treatment regarding the target words and was only involved in mere reviewing and revising the words. Immediate and delayed parallel vocabulary posttests were deployed immediately after the treatment and with a two-week interval to detect the impact of the instructional interventions on the participants’ vocabulary learning and retention, respectively. The results of three One-way ANOVA tests and four repeated-measure ANOVA tests showed significantly higher improvements in the experimental groups’ learning compared to the control group with the UWR outperforming others and achieving higher levels of learning and retention. In terms of the two other contrast groups, the PWC ranked second and the LRD ranked last. The findings underscore WR as an effective technique the pedagogical implications of which will be discussed.
مطالعه حاضر با هدف مقایسه تأثیر سه استراتژی نگاشت معنایی رابطه کلمه (WR) ، روابط و تعریف واژگانی (LRD) و ارتباطات شخصی با کلمه (PWC) بر یادگیری و حفظ واژگان زبان آموزان ایرانی انجام شد. برای این منظور ، 120 زبان آموز سطح متوسط به سه گروه مقایسه ای و یک گروه کنترل تقسیم شدند که هر کدام دارای 30 نفر بودند. این افراد به طور تصادفی در سه گروه آزمایشی مذکور و یک گروه کنترل که دو جلسه در هفته در آموزش حضور داشتند، اختصاص داده شدند. گروههای مقایسه ای به سه روش متفاوت نگاشت معنایی مورد آموزش قرار گرفتند. گروه کنترل هیچ آموزشی در مورد کلمات مورد نظر دریافت نکرد و فقط در بررسی و بازنگری کلمات شرکت داشت. پس آزمونهای فوری بلافاصله پس از آموزش و پس آزمونهای تأخیری با فاصله دو هفته ای به کار گرفته شد تا تأثیر مداخلات آموزشی به ترتیب بر یادگیری و حفظ واژگان شرکت کنندگان تشخیص داده شود. نتایج سه آزمون ANOVA یکطرفه و چهار آزمون ANOVA اندازه گیری مکرر بهبود قابل ملاحظه ای را در یادگیری گروه های آزمایشی نسبت به گروه کنترل نشان داد که گروه UWR از دیگران بهتر عمل کرده و سطوح بالاتری از یادگیری و حفظ را به دست آورد. از نظر دو گروه کنتراست دیگر ، PWC رتبه دوم و LRD رتبه آخر را کسب کردند. یافته ها WR را به عنوان یک تکنیک موثرتر نشان می دهد که مفاهیم آموزشی آن مورد بحث قرار خواهد گرفت.
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.
An, S. C. (2006). A study on English vocabulary learning strategies (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chiayi University, Taiwan.
Baddeley, A. (1999). Human memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Badr, H. M., & Abu-Ayyash, E. A. S. (2019). Semantic mapping or rote memorization: Which strategy is more effective for students’ acquisition and memorization of l2 vocabulary? Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 158–174
Bogaards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 321–343.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, T. S., & Perry, F. L. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 655–773.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Heinle & Heinle.
Dilek, Y., & Yürük, N. (2013). Using semantic mapping technique in vocabulary teaching at pre-intermediate level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1531–1544.
Ellis, R. (2019). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elman, J., Bates, A., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Ghalebi, R., Sadighi, F., & Bagheri, M. S. (2020). Vocabulary learning strategies: A comparative study of EFL learners. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1–12.
Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT, 55(3), 247–254.
Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 12–22.
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539–558.
Joanisse, M., & McClelland, J. (2015). Connectionist perspectives on language learning, representation, and processing. WIREs Cogn Sci, 6(3), 235–247.
Kaelin, A. M. (1991). The effects of instruction using a mnemonic Graphic organizer on vocabulary acquisition among adult English as a second language students (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Sacramento.
Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Mossahebi Mohammadi., S. (2006). The effect of semantic mapping strategy instruction on vocabulary learning of intermediate EFL students. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 49(198), 149–176.
Khoi, R., & Sharififar, S. (2013). Memorization versus semantic mapping in L2 vocabulary acquisition. ELT, 67(2), 199–209.
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Masilamani, J., & Sundarsingh, J. (2016). Learning Style and Preference: Enriching Vocabulary through Experiential Learning in Engineering Classroom. International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, 6(4), 3402–3406.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Morin, R., & Goebel, J. (2001). Basic vocabulary instruction teaching strategies or words? Foreign Language Annals, 34(1), 8–17.
Nation, I. S. P. (2005) Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 581–595). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). 4000 essential English words. Santa Fe Springs, Ca.: Compass Pub.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L., (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Newbury House.
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.
Saragih, E. (2019). The effect of Semantic Mapping Technique on technical vocabulary mastery for midwifery students. Studies in English Language and Education, 6(2), 333–342.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vakilifard, A., Bahramlou, K., & Mousavian, M. (2020). The effect of cooperative learning approach and semantic MAPPING strategy on the acquisition of L2 Persian vocabulary. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–14.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Processing instruction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 267–281). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zahedi, Y., & Abdi, M. (2012). The effect of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2273–2280.
Zarei, A. A., & Sepahian, S. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit instructional techniques (glossing semantic mapping, and imagery) on L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. Academie Royale Des Sciences D Outre-Mer Bulletin Des Seances, 4(3). 30–40.
Zaid, M. (1995). Semantic mapping in communicative language teaching. English Teaching Forum, 33(3), 6–11.
Zhang, P., & Graham, S. (2020). Learning vocabulary through listening: The role of vocabulary knowledge and listening proficiency. Language Learning, 70(4), 1017–1053.
