Volume 4, Issue 1 (1-2022)
kurmanj 2022, 4(1): 1-7 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ebrahimi E, HadaviZade A. The Effect of Computer-Based Concept Mapping Learning Strategy on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy and Fluency. kurmanj 2022; 4 (1) :1-7
URL: http://kurmanj.srpub.org/article-2-148-en.html
URL: http://kurmanj.srpub.org/article-2-148-en.html
Department of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor University, South Tehran Branch, Iran
Abstract: (845 Views)
The present study aimed to find the effect of computer-based concept mapping for teaching English writing accuracy and fluency to Iranian intermediate EFL learners; concept-mapping procedure as a technique that elicited the schemata, background knowledge and students' ideas as well. Forty students were chosen majoring in English language from a private language Institute of Tehran, Iran. Then, they were homogenized by Nelson Proficiency Test. The concept-mapping group was taught writing skill through computer-based concept- mapping technique in College institute, but the control group was instructed by traditional approaches. In fact, they were our two independent groups who were at intermediate level of proficiency. To evaluate the effect of instructional treatment, both groups were given the same items as a pretest and posttest. After the eight sessions of treatment, the data was analyzed by independent t-test through SPSS version 21 to compare the results of pretests and posttests of both groups. The results revealed that the computer-based concept-map group outperformed on the post-test of writing accuracy than the control group, but writing fluency of both groups appear to have been unaffected by the experiment.
Humanities: Research |
Subject:
English language
Received: 2021/12/15 | Revised: 2022/01/16 | Accepted: 2022/01/18 | Published: 2022/01/25
Received: 2021/12/15 | Revised: 2022/01/16 | Accepted: 2022/01/18 | Published: 2022/01/25
References
1. Gebril A. Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all?. Language Testing. 2009 Oct;26(4):507-31. [DOI:10.1177/0265532209340188]
2. Gebril A. Independent and integrated academic writing tasks: A study in generalizability and test method (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa).2006
3. Plakans LM. Second language writing and reading-to-write assessment tasks: A process study. The University of Iowa; 2007.
4. Nunan D. Writing Second Language Teaching and Learning, Teacher Development (Newbury House). 1999.
5. Novak JD. Using concept maps to facilitate classroom and distance learning. Scuola Citta. 2002; 2: 112-114.
6. Kao GYM, Lin SSJ, Sun CT. Breaking concept boundaries to enhance creative potential: Using integrated concept maps for conceptual self-awareness Comput Educ. 2008; 51(4): 1718-1728. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.003]
7. Dias R. Effects of combining system-assigned strategies with learner-based activities in reading in English as a foreign language. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Education, Concordia University. 1998.
8. Morse D, Jutras F. Implementing concept-based learning in a large undergraduate Classroom. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7(2): 243-253. [DOI:10.1187/cbe.07-09-0071] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Ritchie D, Volkl C. Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. Sch Sci Math. 2000; 100(2): 83-89. [DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17240.x]
10. Novak JD, Cañas AJ. The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Inform Visual. 2006; 5(3): 175-184. [DOI:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126]
11. Clariana RB, Koul R, Salehi R. The criterion-related validity of a computer-based approach for scoring concept maps. Int J Instruct Media. 2006; 33(3): 317-326.
12. Ghanizadeh A. On the impact of concept mapping on EFL learners' reading comprehension. Forth Conference on Issues in Language Teaching in Iran. 2007; 115-139.
13. Anderson-Inman L, Zeitz L. Computer-based concept mapping: Active studying for active learners. Comput Teach. 1993; 21(1): 6-11.
14. Novak JD, Gowin DB. Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press. 1984. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139173469]
15. Foegen A, Hargrave CP. Group response technology in lecture-based instruction: exploring student engagement and instructor perceptions. J Spec Educ Tech. 1999; 14(1): 3-17. [DOI:10.1177/016264349901400101]
16. Shin J, Deno SL, Robinson SL, Marston D. Predicting classroom achievement from active responding on a computer-based groupware system. Remed Spec Educ. 2000; 21(1): 53-60. [DOI:10.1177/074193250002100107]
17. Tajeddin Z, Tabatabaei S. Concept mapping as a reading strategy: does it scaffold comprehension and recall. The Reading Matrix: Int Online J. 2016; 16(1): 194-208.
18. Wang WM, Cheung CF, Lee WB, Kwok SK. Self-associated concept mapping for representation, elicitation and inference of knowledge. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2008 Feb 1;21(1):52-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.knosys.2006.11.015]
19. Kessler C, Kessler C. Cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 1992; viii-ix.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |