Generación de la demanda

a_{Department of English, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran}

b_{The Iran Language Institute, Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran}

Abstract

Concept maps function as tools to organize information in graphical or spatial shapes. Since they are considered as an aid to understand and learn a foreign language, the present study was conducted to see if two types of concept maps, spider and hierarchical, can help EFL learners improve their vocabulary knowledge or not. Besides, this study aimed at finding which of these two concept map types can better support learners’ verbal working memory capacity. To this end, 76 EFL learners at the intermediate level of language proficiency were selected based on non-random availability sampling. They were then assigned randomly into three groups, two of which were as experimental groups and received spider and hierarchical concept mapping as vocabulary learning strategies, and one group was considered as the control group with no treatment. Pre and posttests of vocabulary as well a memory test consisting of two tasks were administered before and after the instruction. The results of the comparison of the three groups’ scores in the word memory test revealed that concept mapping can help EFL learners’ verbal working memory. Besides, the results of data analysis indicated that hierarchical concept mapping could lead to the learners’ word test outperformance.

Keywords: Concept Mapping; Hierarchical and Spider Concept Maps; Verbal Working Memory Capacity; Vocabulary Knowledge

Introduction

Bisra (2010) defined concepts as mental representations that help individuals to perceive ideas, images or words and find the similarities and differences between them. In order to teach concepts in a foreign language learning context, concept mapping strategy can be applied. There are different yet related definitions of concept maps. Novak and Gowin (1984) stated that concept maps are “schematic devices for representing a set of concept meanings embedded in a framework of propositions” (p. 15).

Vakilifard, Armand, and Baron (2006) stated a concept map refers to a graphic representation which can both transmit information and present the relationship among concepts.According to Morzetta et al. (2018), concept maps are considered aslearners’ visual road maps in cognitive structures that have multi-directional lines to link words and connect different concepts. They are mostly used as graphical advanced organizers. Using a map to connect concepts makes it possible for learners to memorize and retrieve information more easily, which can make it as an effective cognitive tool in education and language learning (Horton et al., 1993).

Kommers (as cited in McAleese, 1987) described concept maps as an instance of a mind tool that aids learners interpret and organize knowledge. In the same vein, it can be claimed that concept mapping roots in Ausubel’s (1968) learning psychology on cognition. Within his theory, he highlighted that learning happens when there is an assimilation of new concepts into existing concept propositional frameworks known by the learner.

Learners’ working memory is considered as the most critical memory system for incorporating knowledge. Anderson (1992) argued that all information is organized and processed in the working memory first through the interaction of information. A distinguishing feature of the working memory system is that it can process only a relatively small amount of information at a particular moment. To compensate for this, concept mapping can be used as a powerful tool to facilitate meaningful learning as it organizes and structures knowledge using interacting concepts. Stoica, Moraru, and Miron (2010) pointed out that meaningful learning takes place when learners consciously and explicitly tie new knowledge to relevant concepts in their working memory.

Novak and Wandersee (1991) believed that learners and teachers are usually surprised to observe this simple tool can enhance meaningful learning. Different representational forms are used to make diagrams in concept mapping (Jonassen, 1998) and although different kinds of concept map (e.g. hierarchical, spider, flew chart, system, and picture landscape, to name a few) have been presented in the literature, there is still relatively little known about how working memory processes the information and how knowledge will be incorporated into our brain.

There are empirical studies which support the role of concept maps in language learning. Based on the results of their study, Parker, Guillemard, Goetz, and Glarza (1996), for example, concluded concept maps to be effective reading

103

comprehension strategies. Gulmans (2004) and Lumer and Hesse (2004) found that teachers can use concept mapping strategy as a learning aid for students to organize their knowledge and hence learn better in the long run.

Moreira and Moreira (2011) studied concept maps as an instructional tool for knowledge construction in foreign language learning classes, in an attempt to help students, organize, interact, and share meanings derived from their reading of literary texts. The results supported the use of concept mapping strategy.

Although the integration of the meaningful learning theory (Ausubel, 1968) and cognition theory (Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci. 1993) in concept mapping has resulted in the development of different concept map types (Passmore, 1999), there is a paucity of research investigating the role of spider and hierarchical concept maps on language learners’ vocabulary knowledge and verbal working memory capacity. Therefore, the purpose of conducting the present study was three-fold: whether spider and hierarchical concept maps could help EFL learners at the intermediate level improve their knowledge of English vocabulary, whether these two particular concept maps could lead to an enhancement in intermediate EFL learners’ verbal working memory, and comparing the function of these two concept maps, which one is more effective in EFL intermediate learners’ vocabulary knowledge outperformance and verbal working memory capacity.

Literature Review

The history of the emergence of concept maps dates back to Stewart, Van Kirk, and Rowell (1979) who claimed that they proposed the idea of concept maps, but in fact within their concept map model, no propositions were formed from the concepts. In the same year, however, Novak published two papers where he presented examples on concept maps. It was then in 1981 that Novakian concept maps started being commonly known. Novak and Gowin were very influential in introducing the idea to the world (as cited in Åhlberg, 2004).

Then, the use of concept map strategy as a teaching tool became popular. The theoretical framework behind concept mapping was Ausubel's (1986) learning theory which emphasized the role of learners' prior knowledge on meaningful learning. According to this theory, learning is facilitated if there is a link or an association between what is already known with new information. In fact, concept mapping takes a constructivist view and considers both mapping and learning a dynamic process. Concept maps are the off-loading of thinking and show the result of engaging in knowledge construction (McAleese, 1998).

Literally, a concept map is defined as a graphical representation to show the conceptual organization of a particular idea or word and to grasp the learners’ perceptions based on this knowledge structure (Huai & Kommers, 2004). It is generally defined as the technique or strategy for knowledge representation (Gulmans, 2004; Jonassen, Reeves, Hong, Harvey & Peters, 1998; Reimann, 1999). They facilitate organization of the mental representation of ideas and words (Salmerón & García, 2011). This function is very crucial for learners to process the information. The reason concept maps are effective teaching tools is that they display a coherent semantic organization of a concept (Gurlitt & Renkl, 2009).

There are research studies in the literature supporting the role of background knowledge and concept mapping. Roberts (1999) studied the use of concept mapping in in statistics education and Brandt and Elen (2001) in chemistry. The results of their studies indicated that this strategy can influence students’ success positively. Similarly, Huai (2000) investigated relationships between cognitive styles, memory type, and concept mapping on learning outcomes, and she found a positive relationship among them. Oughton and Reed (2000) found a relationship between learners’ learning styles and level of prior knowledge on concept mapping production.Franc (2004) and Kabaca (2002) studied the use of concept maps in the fields of science and mathematics, and, based on the findings, they suggested that students’ success tends to increase with the use of concept mapping. In their study, Huai and Kommers (2004) investigated the role of cognitive styles, knowledge dimensions and concept mapping approaches on learning achievements. The findings of their study do not indicate any concept mapping role in learners’ cognitive style level. Eppler (2006) studied the extensive use of concept maps in learning and knowledge sharing contexts such as meetings, problem solving, and discussions and demonstrated their positive effects on student learning for various topics and in various teaching situations.

Yet, there are some studies suggesting that a concept map may not be influential in learning. For example, Hofman and van Oostendorp (1999) found that compared to a list of concepts with no map, a concept map can play a negative role in the construction of some structures. In the same way, Vörös,Rouet, and Pléh (2011) investigated the effect of a concept map on learners’ comprehension and concluded compared to an organization by lists can be even more effective than concept maps.

There are a few studies which investigate different types of mapping on the learning process. McDonald and Stevenson’s study (1999), for example, revealed that a concept map can support better learning scores compared to a spatial map. Through their empirical study, Potelle and Rouet (2003) showed the positive effect of a hierarchical concept map on comprehension of information compared with a network structure for both explicit and implicit

104

information. Amadieu, van Gog, Paas, Tricot, and Mariné (2009) and Amadieu, Tricot, and Mariné (2010) studied different concept maps in learning text structures and found hierarchical structures more effective compared to network maps.

There are a number of studies on the role of concept maps in language learning in particular. Chularut and DeBacker (2003) studied on the effectiveness of concept mapping on language learners’ achievement. The study involved learners’ creation of concept maps and its relationship with their self-regulation and self-efficacy strategies for language learning. The results showed a positive relationship between concept mapping and the four variables: language achievement, self-monitoring, knowledge acquisition, and self-efficacy.

Tezci, Dermirli and Sapar (2007) studied the use of concept maps in L2 vocabulary acquisition. The findings indicated that concept maps can promote the knowledge of foreign words. They concluded that concept maps help learners learn a word and related vocabulary, the way words are used, and their grammatical structure.

Lee (2013) conducted a study on concept mapping as a pre-writing strategy to learn Korean language in a collaborative way. The results of the study revealed that concept maps could help learners in organizing content and vocabulary. Also, the findings showed that language use and mechanics could be improved in the collaborative group.

Torres, Kucharski and Marriott (2014) examined the use of concept maps as a pre-writing activity for post- graduate Education students. The results revealed better text comprehension, more confidence in writing scientific texts and in the production, structuring, and organization of ideas (as cited in Marriott, & Torres, 2016).

Considering constructivism and learning theory as the theoretical foundation and following Tezci, Dermirli and Sapar (2007), who supported the role of concept maps in teaching foreign language vocabulary and Stoica et al. (2010) who referred to meaningful learning being tied to working memory, the present study aimed at finding answers to the following questions:

1. Does concept mapping help EFL learners at the intermediate level improve their vocabulary knowledge? 2. Does concept mapping help EFL learners at the intermediate level improve their verbal working memory? 3. Which of the concept maps, spider or hierarchical can better lead to an outperformance in EFL learners’

vocabulary knowledge and verbal working memory?

On the basis of these to research questions, three null hypotheses were formed:

H0: Concept mapping does not help EFL learners to improve their vocabulary knowledge. H0: Concept mapping does not help EFL learners to improve their verbal working memory.

H0: There is no significant difference in the role of spider and hierarchical concept maps in improving EFL learners’ verbal working memory.

Method Participants

In order to select participants for the purpose of the present study, a non-random availability sampling was employed. 76 out of the 90 available EFL learners were chosen as being at the intermediate level. The participants were all native speakers of Persian, and they were learning English as a foreign language at the university. The age range of the participants was 19 to 24 years old, with the average age of about 22.

Instruments

The instruments used in this study were a language proficiency test before the instruction, and a vocabulary achievement test and verbal working memory test used before and after the instruction.

The first instrument used was Oxford Placement Test (OPT, 2005). It was used to select the intermediate level students from among all available EFL learners. It consisted of 55 items of grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension to be answered in 60 minutes. The OPT has been administered in many institutions around the world, and its reliability and validity have been ensured.

The second instrument used in the present study was a vocabulary test. It was a researcher-made achievement test as it was intended to measure the knowledge of English words students were expected to learn during the instruction. The test consisted of 25 multiple choice items. To see if the test enjoyed content validity, it was given to language professors to review the items for their content, and they reported it to have content validity. It was then piloted to ten students with characteristics similar to those of the participants of the study. The reliability of the scores obtained was calculated using Cron Bach’s Alpha and turned out to be .83. Thus, the test was also considered a reliable one.

Among all verbal working memory (VWM) span tasks including the counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks which are the most widely used measurement tools (Conway et al., udy2005), the counting span and reading span tasks were used to answer the research questions in the present study.

VWM measures are created not only for information storage and rehearsal (such as word span), but also for information processing and comprehension (Turner & Engle, 1989). Therefore, the span tasks used in this study

105

interweave the to-be-remembered target stimuli, which are English words, along with a more demanding processing task including comprehending sentences and enumerating an array of words. It follows the original reading span task, developed by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) which taps the storage and processing functions of VWM. In the counting span task, the participants are simply required to listen to an array of words, and then repeat as many as they can. The number of words used in this test start with two and continue up to seven ones. In the reading span task, the subjects read sentences while trying to remember words and recognize they are semantically and structurally right or wrong. The sentences are presented in groups that range in size from two to six. This item number for both tasks were previously reported to be adequate for most college student populations (Conway et al., 2002; Kane et al., 2004).

Although different versions of the counting span task and the reading span task have been designed for both single-subject and group sessions, to decrease the potential error and check each participant’s capacity to store and process vocabulary-related knowledge of English as well as the comprehension of the sentences, the tasks were administered to one student at a time.

The scoring measures of the present WMC test are straightforward and simple. There are two sources of data as one is from the storage component (the counting task) and one from the processing component (the reading span task). Correct responses to each part of an item are assigned one number, and all other responses are assigned a different one. That is, for every correct answer number 1 and incorrect answers, 0 is given, with no distinction among different types of errors such as mispronunciation. Therefore, the scoring is of an all-or-nothing nature.

With regard to the reliability of the tests used in the present study, Conway et al (2005) stated that both reading span and counting span have been administered to thousands of subjects in over a hundred independent studies, and the conclusion drawn from this body of research revealed that these measures have adequate reliability. All studies observed indices of reliability ranging from .70 to .90. In particular, Kane et al. (2004) reported coefficient alphas of .78 for the reading and .77 for the counting span. Internal consistency estimates of similar magnitudes have been reported in other studies such as Conway et al. (2002), Engle, Tuholski, et al. (1999), Hambrick and Engle (2002), and Oberauer, Süß, Schulze, Wilhelm, and Wittmann (2000). Considering the validity of the test, as evidenced by Conway et al. (2005), measures of WMC including counting and reading span, show considerable construct validity as they predict a participant’s performance on tasks for which control of attention and thought is important.

Data Collection Procedures

From among all available EFL students to the researcher, 90 students were first selected. The OPT (2005) was administered, and based on the performance of the students in the test, 76 students were considered as being considered at the intermediate level. They made the sample of the study. The participants were then assigned to three groups randomly: one as the control and two as the experimental groups.

A researcher-made achievement test consisting of 25 MC items of vocabulary was administered in 30 minutes before the instruction, and the related scores were kept as the vocabulary pretest scores. It is worth mentioning that the test was piloted before it was used for the purpose of study for its reliability (r=.83), and the content was examined by two language professors for its content validity.

A verbal working memory capacity (VWMC) test was then administered to each participant one by one. The test included two tasks: the counting and the reading span tasks. In order to measure the students’ ability for vocabulary storage, the counting span task was used. In this task, the participants were asked to listen to a number of words each time and repeat as many as they could. The task started with two word items, and the most number of words in each item was seven. The students received One (1) for each correct word they said. No number was assigned to words which were mispronounced. In the reading span task, the students first read sentences aloud. Then, they were asked to say whether the sentences were correct both in terms of meaning and structure or not. Besides, they were required to remember as many words within the sentences as they could. All words intended to be recalled were exactly the ones used in the vocabulary pretest. In fact, they were the words students were to be instructed later. No single sentence was