MIND MAP TECHNIQUES AND SCHEMA THEORY: ENHANCING TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY IN A READING COURSE

Author: Abolfazl Shirban Sasi

ABASTRACT

This article explores the integration of mind maps and Schema Theory as effective tools for teaching English vocabulary, enhancing students’ comprehension, retention, and overall learning through an EFL reading course. Participants were EFL freshmen in a university in Taiwan (N = 56, p ≤ 0.05). The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups of treatment (N=27) and control (N=29). The experiment lasted for eight 50-min lessons held in successive sessions. Both groups were to study one lesson containing about seven to 10 new/difficult words in form of a reading comprehension lesson. The treatment group received the lessons through mind mapping techniques; whereas, the control group tried to learn the words by mere contextual clues present in the passages. For the research instrument, the subjects were administered a 30-item multiple-choice vocabulary test. An independent sample T-test was used to examine the results of the experiment. At p=.031, the statistical test revealed a significant difference in the gained scores between the two groups. Additionally, the mean vocabulary gained score of 3.55 for the treatment group as opposed to the mean of 2.31 for the control group showed more target vocabulary learned by the treatment group.

Keywords: English vocabulary; mind maps; Schema Theory

REFERENCES

  • Alba, M. (2022). Using mind map in developing EFL learners’ vocabulary. Journal of New Advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 816-830. doi: 10.22034/jeltal.2022.4.1.8.
  • Al-Jarf, R. (2009). Enhancing Freshman Students’ Writing Skills with a Mind Mapping Software. International Education Studies, 2(2), 39-46.
  • Bhattacharya, D., & Mohalik, R. (2020). Digital mind mapping software: A new horizon in the modern teaching learning strategy. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 4(10), 400-406. doi:10.36348/jaep.2020.v04i10.001
  • Buzan, T. (2005). Mind map handbook. London: Thorsons.
  • Buzan, T. (2006). Master your memory. Essex: BBC Active.
  • Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. Routledge.
  • Cho, Y. A., & Ma, J. H. (2020). The Effects of Schema Activation and Reading Strategy Use on L2 Reading Comprehension. English Teaching, 75(3), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.3.202009.49
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences, and do they matter? Higher Education, 62 (3), 279-301.
  • Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (eds.) (2003). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  • Halpern, D. F., (2003). Thought & Knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking, Fourth Edition.    London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Hamid, R., Manda, M. L., Yassi, A. H., & Jubhari, R. R. (2020). Dominant Influence of Linguistic Knowledge in EFL Reading Comprehension: Schemata Analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12), 6715–6721. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020. 081236
  • Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: the design process demystified. (4th edition.). London: Architectural Press.
  • Liu, P. (2016). Mind Mapping and Its Effect on Vocabulary Retention in EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 51-57.
  • Luangkrajang, M.S. (2022). Use of mind-mapping in language learning: A cognitive approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(8), 1616-1621. doi: 10.17507/tpls.1208.18.
  • McCelland, J. S., and Walters, B. (2018). Reading Voyage Expert 1. Taipei: Bookman, Ltd.
  • Mosely, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., & Miller, J., et al. (2005). Framework for thinking: a handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nasr-Esfahani, N., Chalak, A., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021). Utilizing electronic mind maps to trigger EFL teachers’ creativity. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 10(2), 129-151.
  • Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema Theory and Knowledge-Based Processes in Second Language Reading Comprehension: A Need for Alternative Perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00189
  • Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588216
  • Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Rinehart and Winston Publishers.
  • Paivio, A., & Begg, I. (1981). Psychology of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Pallant, J. F. (2005). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Sydney, Ligare.
  • Rumelhart, D (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro et al. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Rumelhart, D., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Stieglitz, E. L. (1983). A practical approach to vocabulary reinforcement. ELT Journal, 37, 71-75.
  • Tardieu, H., & Gyselinck, V. (2003). Working memory constraints in the integration and comprehension of information in a multimedia context. In H. V. Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  • Yule, G. (1985). The study of language: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.