The Effect of Semantic Mapping as a Vocabulary Instruction Technique on EFL Learners with Different Perceptual Learning Styles
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)اسماعیل عبداله زاده 1 , ناصر امیری 2
1 - Iran University of Science and Technology
2 - Iran University of Science and Technology
کلید واژه: vocabulary instruction, Semantic Mapping, Perceptual Modality,
چکیده مقاله :
Traditional and modern vocabulary instruction techniques have been introduced in the past few decades to improve the learners’ performance in reading comprehension. Semantic mapping, which entails drawing learners’ attention to the interrelationships among lexical items through graphic organizers, is claimed to enhance vocabulary learning significantly. However, whether this technique suits all types of learners has not been adequately investigated. This study examines the effectiveness of employing semantic mapping versus traditional approaches in vocabulary instruction to EFL learners with different perceptual modalities. A modified version of Reid’s (1987) perceptual learning style questionnaire was used to determine the learners’ modality types. The results indicate that semantic mapping in comparison to the traditional approaches significantly enhances vocabulary learning of EFL learners. However, although visual learners slightly outperformed other types of learners on the post-test, no significant differences were observed among intermediate learners with different perceptual modalities employing semantic mapping for vocabulary practice.
در ده های اخیر تکنیک های مختلفی اعم از سنتی و مدرن جهت تدریس واژگان زبان و بهبود درک مطلب زبان آموزان ارائه شده اند. ادعا میشود که استفاده از روش بازنمایی معنایی جلب کردن توجه زبان آموز به روابط بین مقولات واژگانی، از طریق سامانگرهای ترسیمی ، به میزان قابل توجهی یادگیری واژه گان زبان را بهبود می بخشد. البته هنوز تحقیقات کاملی در خصوص مناسب بودن این روش برای زبان آموزانی که انگلیسی را به دور از محیط طبیعی یاد میگیرند انجام نشده است. این تحقیق تاثیر استفاده از روش بازنمایی معنایی در مقابل دیدگاه های سنتی تدریس واژگان به زبان آموزان را از ابعاد گوناگون بررسی می کند. از پرسشنامه رید (1997) با اندکی تغییرات برای تعیین سبک یادگیری زبان آموزان استفاده شد و نتیجه بیانگر این مطلب بود که استفاده از روش بازنمایی معنایی در مقایسه با دیدگاه های سنتی تدریس ، به میزان قابل توجهی یادگیری واژ گان زبان انگلیسی زبان آموزان را بهبود می بخشد. اگر چه زبان آموزان با ادراک تصویری قوی تر از سایرین موفق تر بودند اما تفاوت قابل توجهی در استفاده از روش بازنمایی معنایی برای یادگیری واژگان زبانی بین زبان آموزان در سطح متوسط و با سبکهای مختلف ادراکی ، دیده نشد. نتایج بدست آمده با توجه به کتب مختلف و سطح مهارت شاگردان مورد بحث قرار خواهد گرفت.
Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A lexical input processing approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 2, 200-208.
Bauman, J. F., & Kame'enui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to voltaire. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 604-632). New York: Macmillan.
Bleckley, B. (2006). Rethinking vocabulary instruction. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from Pedagogy in practice: http://pedagogypractice.blogspot.com/2006/12/rethinking-vocabulary-instruction.html
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content areas. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130-149). New York: International Reading Association.
Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C.Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doyle, W., & Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research in matching learning and teaching styles. Theory into Practice , 23 (1), 20-25.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 13, 49-91.
Harley, B., Howard, J., & Roberge, B. (1996). An exploratory study of direct techniques. The Canadian Modern Language Journal , 53 (1), 281-304.
Kinsella, K. (1993). Perceptual learning preferences survey. In J. M. Reid, (Ed.), (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 221-238).Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman
Laufer, B. (1997). What's in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In M. McCarthy & N. Schmitt (Eds.) Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lee, L. & Gundersen, E. (2001). Select readings: Intermediate. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lightbown, P. S., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (Revised ed.). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly , 17 (3), 359-382.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Wlliams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15-41) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margosein, Pascarella, & Pflaum (1982). The effects of instruction using semantic mapping on vocabulary and comprehension. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 2, 185-194.
Meyers, M. J. (1980). The significance of learning modalities, modes of instruction, and verbal feedback for learning to recognize written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 62-69.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.WashingtonDC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning , 50, 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning.Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and working styles. In J. M. Reid, (Ed.) (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.208-215.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd Ed., pp. 350-367). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning style and teaching style in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Renou, J. (2010). A Study of perceptual learning styles and achievement in a university-level foreign language course. Unpublished manuscript, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Mayagüez.
