THE COMPARATIVE IMPACT OF CONCEPT MAPPING AND LEXICAL INFERENCING ON EFL LEARNERS' RETENTION OF...

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 4 (3), November 2013; 343-‐363 Nosratinia, M., Amini, M., & Sarabchian, E EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

343

THE COMPARATIVE IMPACT OF CONCEPT MAPPING AND LEXICAL INFERENCING ON EFL LEARNERS' RETENTION

OF PHRASAL VERBS

Mania Nosratinia Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages,

English Department, Tehran, Iran [email protected]

Mahboobe Amini

MA in TEFL, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages, English Department, Tehran, Iran

[email protected]

Elnaz Sarabchian MA in TEFL, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Faculty of Foreign Languages, English

Department, Tehran, Iran [email protected]

ABSTRACT The present study is an attempt to investigate the comparative effects of "concept mapping" and "lexical inferencing" strategies on English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners' retention of phrasal verbs. For this purpose, 90 intermediate female learners, between 17 and 31 years old, attending the Iran-Mehr Language School in Tehran took a piloted sample Preliminary English Test (PET), 60 of whom were selected as homogenous learners. They were randomly divided into two experimental groups -one learning phrasal verbs through "concept mapping" strategy and the other with the "lexical inferencing" strategy. They were given a piloted researchers-made pretest on phrasal verbs to ensure that the participants had no prior knowledge of the target phrasal verbs. Then all participants in both groups were taught using the same material and received the same amount of instruction. The only difference was that one experimental group was taught through the concept mapping strategy while the other one through the lexical inferencing strategy. After conducting the treatment, a piloted researchers-made post-test was administered to both groups, in order to measure the students' ability on the retention of the phrasal verbs taught through concept mapping and lexical inferencing strategies. The post-test was conducted after a two-week interval. The analysis of the test scores using t-test revealed that both strategies had significant effects on retention of the phrasal verbs. It was also concluded that there was no significant difference between the performances of both groups on retention of the phrasal verbs. KEYWORDS: CONCEPT MAP, LEXICAL INFERENCE, VOCABULARY RETENTION, PHRASAL VERBS



344

INTRODUCTION Language learners are likely to come up with new words and vocabulary items when learning a second language. Many argue that vocabulary is one of the most important components of any language to teach and learn (Gess & Selinker, 1994, p. 270). According to Nation (2001) acquiring vocabulary of a language affects the process of learning that language and highly enhances communication in that language.

Vocabulary has different types and subcategories such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and also multiword expressions like idioms, fixed expressions and phrasal verbs (Moon, 1997; Wray, 2002). Phrasal verbs are usually found in vocabulary textbooks and grammar courses in the EFL curriculum. A phrasal verb is a type of verb, which consists of a sequence of a lexical element in combination with a particle, the meaning of which is different from the meanings of its separate parts (Koprowski, 2005). Since they are composed of the content word (verb) and the function word (particle), they can be dealt with either in vocabulary as multiword expressions, or in grammar, with regard to the transitivity and the separability. The nature of phrasal verbs can be difficult at best to comprehend and memorize, because their meaning is uninterpretable due to the idiomaticity, which makes phrasal verbs a particular problem (Schmitt, 2000). One of the practical factors in facilitating retention and comprehension of phrasal verbs is the use of learning strategies. Strategies are those specific attacks that individuals make on a given problem, and that vary considerably within each individual. Park (1995) defines learning strategies as "the mental activities that people use when they study to help themselves acquire, organize, or remember incoming knowledge more efficiently" (p. 35). O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, and Russo (1985, p. 285-296) categorized learning strategies under three main groups: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and socio-affective strategies. Among these strategies, metacognitive strategies are considered as the most essential ones in developing learners' skills (Anderson, 1991). There are a number of metacognitive learning strategies that can help students to become more sophisticated learners such as concept mapping and making lexical inference. Concept mapping The quest for exploring the relationship between knowledge and graphic representation of concepts has become an interesting field of investigation in the study of skill acquisition (Dormer, 2005). In fact, when knowledge is organized and represented through graphical means we are on the voyage to concept maps (Novak, 1977). A concept map, as a learning strategy, is defined as a visual representation of an individual's knowledge structure on a particular topic as constructed by the individual (Zimmaro & Cawley, 1998). With the visual representation of key words, students can identify main issues of a text and organize these key issues in a meaningful way. The process of creating and modifying a concept map involves making decisions about the different ways concepts are related to one another, leading the individual to reflect on prior knowledge as it relates to new material (McAleese, 1998), as well as engaging in "control" processes of planning, monitoring progress, and evaluating goal attainment as the map is



345

constructed (Brown, 1987). Although the literature on concept mapping has been primarily concerned with its application in L1 context, its benefits in L2 context has been recently explored (Ghanizadeh, 2007). Concept mapping is used in different areas of L2 research covering language skills. As a proper alternative to pre and post reading activities, the technique was used by Carrell, Pharis and Liberto (1989) in enhancing L2 reading. Examining its impact on L2 listening comprehension, Fahim and Hiedari (2006) reported a positive influence of concept mapping on the learners' listening comprehension. Moreover, in a study by Pishghadam and Ghanizadeh (2006) on the effect of concept mapping on EFL writing ability of a group of Iranian students, it was found that the technique resulted in quantitative and qualitative improvement of students' writing ability. As an assessment device, concept mapping has already been employed in L1 research (e.g., Kinchin, 2000; Reese, 2004). As of recent, the technique was used by Ghanizadeh (2007) as an assessment tool in L2 reading comprehension. Liu and Chen (2008) examined the effect of computer-based concept mapping on reading strategies of a group of Taiwanese students learning English as a foreign language. The analysis of variance showed that this effect has more reading benefit on the high-level group than on the low-level one. Recently, Marriott and Torres (2008) examined the use of concept mapping in developing a student's reading, writing and oral skills. Lexical Inference Inference refers to "the process, in language learning, of arriving at a hypothesis, idea, or judgment on the basis of other knowledge, ideas, or judgments, that is, the process of making inference or inferring" (Richards & Platt and Platt, 2000). In foreign language learning, inference is intended to refer to a process of identifying unfamiliar stimuli, concerned with the acquisition of new morphemes and vocabularies in natural context. In inferring, attributes and contexts that are familiar are utilized in recognizing what is unfamiliar. Language learners are likely to come up with new words and vocabulary items in their interaction with a text. Not knowing the meaning of the new words, they are advised to employ some compensation strategies and utilize familiar contexts and attributes to tackle the problem. As evident from the definition, to generate inference, one has to rely on certain knowledge sources. Various researchers have put forth different sources of knowledge one may resort to in constructing lexical inference. Haastrup (as cited in Soria, 2001) suggested three sources, namely, contextual, intralingual, and interlingual, that readers may use in making lexical inference.

Making inferences can be used in many subjects, particularly reading and encourages learners to construct meaning by reading between the lines. It is a skill that all learners need in order to comprehend texts. Thus, based on the above-mentioned points, concept mapping and making lexical inference may both be powerful strategies in teaching and learning vocabulary. Hence, this study investigated the comparative impact of lexical inference and use of concept map strategy on retention of phrasal verbs. The results of this study may shed light on problems of learning phrasal verbs.



346

RESEARCH QUESTION To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research question was posed: Is there any statistically significant difference between the impact of using concept map and making lexical inference on EFL learners' retention of phrasal verbs? METHODOLOGY Participants The participants of this study included 60 students, majoring at English language literature and English language translation. Prior to the study, 90 candidates took Preliminary English Test (PET). In order to choose a homogeneous sample from among them 60 students whose scores fell between one standard deviation below or above the mean were selected and randomly assigned to two groups. Experimental group 1 consisted of 30 students, practicing concept mapping, and experimental group 2, practicing word inference. Instruments To fulfill the purpose of the study the following instruments were used: PET Language Proficiency Test: The first testing instrument was PET (2004) consisted of 67 items including three sections of reading (35 items), writing (7 items), and listening (25 items). The allotted time for this test was an hour and thirty minutes. The test includes skills of grammar and structure, reading and vocabulary, and writing. The Cronbach alpha formula was employed to estimate the reliability of PET and an acceptable reliability of .91 was obtained. American English File 2: The learners’ course book was "American English File 2", by Olive Oxenden, Chridtina Latham-Koenig, and Paul Seligson; Oxford publication (2008). Six units should have been covered during 8 weeks, and also some tasks of work book regarding the units including multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blanks, matching, and true- false have been used for both groups. Two Researchers-made Tests of Phrasal Verbs: A researchers-made test of phrasal verbs was administered to the participants as the pretest. Also, at the end of the treatment, a parallel researchers-made test with the same nature and characteristics as the phrasal verb post-test was administered to the participants. Before the administration, these two tests were piloted with 30 subjects with almost similar characteristics to the target sample. The two tests were composed of 25 items each in multiple-choice format. The time allocated for each test was 20 minutes. Procedure To accomplish the purpose of the study the following procedure was pursued: The PET, phrasal verbs pre and post-tests were standardized by piloting them among a group of 30 students with almost similar characteristics of the representative sample. Then the three characteristics of individual items (Item Facility, Item Discrimination, and Choice Distribution) were calculated in order to omit the malfunctioning items. The writing part of PET



347

was rated, according to the rating scale provided by Cambridge for PET, by two of the researchers. In order to make sure that the researchers had the same understanding of it a few papers were rated by them. Since it was shown that there was consistency between the papers they rated, the researchers moved to the actual practice. Later on, the inter-rater reliability was calculated on the basis of the ratings done by the researchers for the pilot test of PET. Since there was an acceptable consistency between them, the researchers went through the same procedure for the main participants. It should be mentioned that the speaking part of PET was not administered because of not having permission from institute officials to perform this part. An already piloted PET was given to 90 intermediate level students of Iran-Mehr Language School (in Tehran, Iran) who were selected non-randomly and 60 students whose score fall between one standard deviation above and below the mean were chosen. The 60 subjects were divided randomly into two experimental groups, one class of 30 as the concept mapping group and one class of 30 as the lexical inferencing group. Then, all of the students in two groups participated in the phrasal verb pretest in order to make sure that there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding this variable before the treatment and to make sure that participants are not familiar with these phrasal verbs. All the participants were taught using the same material and they received the same amount of instruction. The only difference lay in the teaching of concept mapping strategy, which was included in one experimental group and lexical inferencing strategy in another experimental group. Both classes were instructed by the same teacher (one of the researchers). The course consisted of 20 sessions of 90 minutes spanning over a period of approximately two month. In this study only six files out of nine files of the text book (American English File 2) were taught. Concept Mapping Group The students in this experimental group received the instruction for concept mapping strategy. The strategy being taught was based on Harris and Graham procedure of strategy instruction (1996). The procedure consists of five stages as follows: (1) Strategy description; (2) Discussion of goals and purposes; (3) Modeling of the strategy; (4) Student mastery of strategy; & (5) Guided practice and feedback. The descriptions of the above-mentioned stages are as follows: 1. Strategy description. As an introduction, students were told that they were going to learn about the strategy of concept mapping. Concept mapping was described as a strategy that could be used to categorize information in a graphic form through drawing. 2. Discussion of goals and purpose of strategy. Concept mapping was described as a strategy that could help learners with vocabulary development and reading comprehension.



348

For the purpose of this study, the teacher discussed the students about the significance and benefits of using the concept mapping strategy in learning and retention of vocabulary especially phrasal verbs. Students were asked two questions: (a) How do you think the strategy of concept mapping might help you to learn and retain

vocabulary better? (b) How could this strategy help you with different types of vocabulary especially phrasal

verbs? To reinforce students' participation as collaborators in the learning process, goals and Purposes that students generated were written on the white board. 3. Modeling the strategy. In this stage the step-by-step instruction for creating a concept map was described, as follow:

Step 1: The teacher introduces a concept (a verb, from the reading passage) that was familiar to all students, such as "call". Then, the teacher draws a square in the center of the board and writes the verb (Call) on it. Step 2: The students had to say different prepositions which could be associated with that verb, such as "up", "off", "in", "back", "on". The teacher drew lines from the square for each of the prepositions involved. After that, she drew a circle at the end of each of the lines, and wrote each preposition in one circle. Step 3: The teacher chose one of the prepositions associated with that verb (such as call up) and explained the meaning of it in one word verb (to telephone) and wrote it in the other circle in the same line. Step 4: The teacher gave some examples to show "separability" and "inseparability" status of the phrasal verbs and wrote them in the board: "Call up" as an example for "separablity": "Call up” means "To telephone” and is "separable", for example: I called up Mary last night. I called Mary up last night. I called her up last night. Or "Call on" as an example for "inseparability": "Call on" means, "To visit" and is "inseparable": I called on Mary in the hospital. I called Mary on in the hospital. Step 5: The teacher gave students enough time to say other examples and wrote them in the proper circles in the same manner.



349

4. Student mastery of strategy. During this stage, the teacher encouraged students to draw another parts of the concept map using the remaining prepositions such as "off", "in", "back", "on". The teacher selected several students to show their maps to their classmates. 5. Guided practice and Feedback. In this stage, the teacher collected the students' concept maps and after reviewing them and correcting mistakes, returned the corrected concept maps to the students. It should be mentioned that, due to the students' unfamiliarity with the strategy of concept mapping, in the three first sessions the teacher using the approach of "expert-constructed concept maps", explained some complete forms of concept maps. Next she provided students with uncompleted forms of concept mapping while the learners had to complete them using "Fill in the Map Model". Finally the learners were required to construct concept maps based on the "Hierarchy Model of Concept Mapping" and the above-mentioned procedures. All of the concept maps were based on the phrasal verbs of the texts in "American English File 2" (six files). It should be mentioned that, from 50 phrasal verbs used in this study twenty of them were taken from reading passages of "American English File 2", and as for the remained phrasal verbs, the researchers selected one word verbs through the reading passages of the book and used their corresponding phrasal verbs.

Lexical Inferencing Group The teacher started the first session of instruction by defining the concept of lexical inferencing as follows: Lexical inferencing is making "informed guesses" about the meaning of unknown words based on the available cues in the text. Guessing is a compensation strategy, which involves using a wide variety of clues to guess the meaning when the learner does not know the meaning of a word. Good language learners, when confronted with unknown words, make educated guesses. On the other hand, less adapted language learners try to look up every unfamiliar word, which impedes progress toward proficiency. To make the above-mentioned points more tangible, the teacher gave the picture of a tent falling down to each of the participants and asked them to think about the reason of falling down the tent. She explained that each person has different experiences and different background knowledge that makes her/his has different inferences from the same matter. Each student comes with a variety of personal experiences. These personal experiences and cultural differences can affect one's ability to infer. As Immanuel Kant stated (cited in Carrell and Eisterhold 1988, p. 81) "new information, new concepts, and new ideas can have meaning only when they can be related to something the individual already knows." Then, she asked them to tell their reasons. All of the reasons for different types of inferences can be categorized into fifteen categories according to Haastrup's (1991) taxonomy of knowledge sources for lexical inferencing (Table 1).



350

Table 1: Taxonomy of Knowledge Sources for Lexical Inferencing Based on Haastrup (1991)

In this taxonomy for the distinctions among the different types of inferences, three conditions are established in terms of contextual clues:

• Condition 1: Words with local co-text clues. • Condition 2: Words with global co-text clues. • Condition 3: Words with extra-textual clues.

All of the above conditions were explained to the students with examples as follows: Local co-text clues: are clues found in the sentence in which the target word occurs. The clues may be realized through cohesive ties, coherence relations, or both. For the purpose of this study, cohesive ties refer to synonyms, antonyms, super-ordinates, and collocations (Halliday and Hasan, 1976), whereas coherence relation is the relationship between propositions, such as causal relation, consequential relation, contrastive relation and others (Sanders, Spoorena and Noordman, 1992).

Global co-text: refers to the case where successful understanding of the target word calls for an overall understanding of the text by means of integrating information throughout the text. No specific part of the text provides direct clues for the word. The use of an extra-textual clue refers to the case where the text does not provide direct clues for the word meaning and one has to fall back on background knowledge or experience to infer its meaning. To gather data about learners' lexical inferencing strategies each session the students were



351

presented with a handout containing five reading passage in which 5 targeted phrasal verbs were included. The reading passages selected were developed by Haastrup (1991) in a study on lexical inferencing with Danish learners of English or extracted from the course book (American English File 2). Following the suggestion of Haastrup (1991), each text contained a local co-text clues, global co-text clues, or words with extra-textual clues, which helps learners to identify the meaning of targeted phrasal verbs. Then the students had time to guess the meanings of phrasal verbs. Different researches show that successful inferencing depends heavily on the ability to comprehend the text as a whole and most of the words in it (Hirsh & Nation, 1992; Laufer, 1988; Liu & Nation, 1985). So, before being used in the present study, the reading passages were piloted with a group of students having almost similar characteristics to the participants in the study. The pilot study revealed that the students had a good overall comprehension of the text (mean of comprehension: 6.6/10). It also showed that the percentage of unknown words in the passage ranged from 4.27% to 2.67%, derived by dividing the total number of the words reported as unknown by the total number of words in the passage and multiplying the results by 100 (based on Haastrup, 1991). The students were asked to read the text for comprehension and to try to infer the meanings of the unknown phrasal verbs. The students had 30 minutes to guess the meanings of those five phrasal verbs within the 5 texts. The participants were allowed to work in pairs and share ideas with their peers since Nation (2001, p. 261) claimed that when teaching students the strategy of lexical inferencing, it is better for students to work together, with the teacher, in groups, in pairs and then individually. Then, the instructor checked their guesses and wrote the meaning of each phrasal verb on the board with the help of the students. As homework for the next session, the students besides of working out the text book exercises were supposed to write five sentences with those phrasal verbs that had been presented at that session. At the beginning of each session the teacher checked their assignment of the previous session. After teaching different parts of the specified unit the teacher gave them a new handout including five new phrasal verbs and the participants had enough time to share their guesses and ideas. Finally they should share their guesses with the teacher and she wrote the meaning of each phrasal verb on the board with the help of the students. Then again as homework the participants were asked to write five extra sentences with those phrasal verbs taught at that session. This procedure was followed up to the end of the 20th session. Two weeks after the end of the instruction, a piloted researcher-made post-test consisted of 30 multiple-choice item based on those 50 phrasal verbs presented during the instruction was administered to investigate the participants' retention of phrasal verbs. The time allocated to this test was 15 minutes and the range of scores was from 0 to 30.



352

The data obtained from the post-test were analyzed in order to study the impact of two strategies -concept mapping and lexical inferencing- on retention of phrasal verbs. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics of the PET Proficiency Test Piloting The PET consisted of 67 items including three sections of reading (35 items), writing (7 items), and listening (25 items). The test was administered to a group of 30 intermediate-level EFL learners at the Iran-Mehr Language School bearing almost the same characteristics as the target sample. All items went through an item analysis procedure and two items were discarded due to their malfunctioning characteristics. Following the piloting of the test, the mean and standard deviation of the raw scores and the reliability were calculated. The mean and the standard deviation of this administration were found to be 70.22 and 8.16 respectively. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the PET in the pilot phase.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance VAR00006 30 35.00 60.00 70.2200 8.16899 83.288 Valid N (listwise) 30

Table 3 shows the reliability of the test scores gained from the participants in the PET piloting phase. The Cronbach alpha formula was employed for this purpose and an acceptable reliability of .91 was obtained.

Table 3: Reliability of the PET Piloting before Deletion of Malfunctioning Items

Cronbach's Alpha Number of

Items .915 67

After deletion of the 2 malfunctioning items, the reliability of the test shifted to .95. Table 4 shows the reliability of the test scores gained after the deletion.

Table 4: Reliability of the PET Piloting after Deletion of 2 Items Cronbach's Alpha

Number of Items

.954 65 There were two writing tasks in the test rated by two qualified raters (Two of the researchers) using the predetermined PET rating scale. The rating scale used in this study was the official



353

Cambridge General Mark Schemes for Writing. The rating was done on the basis of the criteria stated in the rating scale including the range of scores from 0 to 5. In order to calculate the inter-rater reliability between the raters, the researcher used the Pearson correlation coefficient. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between the two raters. Therefore, this gave assurance to the researcher that the same raters can be used for the actual administration of the test (the results are shown in Table 5 and Table 6).

Table 5: Inter-rater Reliability of the Two Raters in the Piloting of Writing Part 2

Correlations VAR00001 VAR00002

VAR00001 Pearson Correlation 1 .834** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 30 30

VAR00002 Pearson Correlation .877** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6: Inter-rater Reliability of the Two Raters in the Piloting of Writing Part 3

VAR00003 VAR00004

VAR00003 Pearson Correlation 1 .813** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 30 30

VAR00004 Pearson Correlation .723** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Descriptive Statistics of the PET Proficiency Test Administration After the procedure of piloting the PET test, it became an instrument to homogenize the students for this study. On the whole, 90 students participated in the test administration. After the administration of the test, descriptive statistics were conducted just as was done in the piloting phase. Table 7 shows these statistics with the mean of 73.32and the standard deviation of 8.22.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Administration N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation VAR00005 90 59.00 89.00 73.3281 8.22463 Valid N (listwise) 90



354

The reliability of the PET in this actual administration for homogenization of the subjects was calculated too (Table 8). An index of .91 reassured the researcher of the reliability of this test.

Table 8: Reliability of the PET Administration

Cronbach's Alpha

Number of Items

.912 65 Descriptive Statistics of the Phrasal Verbs Tests Piloting Phrasal Verb Pretest As it was already stated, the pretest was administered in order to make sure that the participant had no prior knowledge of the target phrasal verbs. The test was already piloted with a group of 30 subjects with almost the same characteristics as the target group of the main study. According to the results, there were no malfunctioning items. The results of the pretest revealed that the participants were unfamiliar with 50 phrasal verbs that were taught to them through these strategies (Table 9). Phrasal Verb Post-test After conducting the treatment sessions, in order to measure the students' ability on the retention of the phrasal verbs taught a post-test was conducted at the interval of two weeks. Before administration, the test piloted with a group of 30 subjects with almost the same characteristics as the target group. According to the results, there were no malfunctioning items. The results are shown in table 9.

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of the Phrasal Verb Tests Piloting

Phrasal verb Tests

Participants N Mean Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Pretest 30 30 4.66 5.33 4 30 Post-test 30 30 4.73 5.49 5 30 Descriptive Statistics of the Phrasal Verbs Tests Administration Phrasal Verb Pre-test Before starting the treatment, a pretest which was a phrasal verbs pretest, was administered by the researchers in order to make sure that the participants in both groups had no prior knowledge of the target phrasal verbs. As displayed in Table 10 and 11 the mean scores for lexical inferencing and concept mapping groups on Pretest of Phrasal Verbs are 4.38 and 4.86 respectively.



355

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest of Phrasal Verbs,

Lexical Inferencing Group

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest of Phrasal Verbs Concept Mapping Group

Phrasal Verb Post-test The target phrasal verbs were taught to the two experimental groups during a 20 session treatment. At the end of the treatment a post-test was administered to both groups with an interval of two weeks in order to test the retention of the phrasal verbs by two experimental groups. As displayed in Tables 12 and 13 the mean scores for lexical inferencing and concept mapping groups on Pretest of Phrasal Verbs are 23.93 and 25.97 respectively.

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of the Lexical Inferencing group Post-test Administration

N

Minimum

Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation Variance

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic

V1 30 17 30 23.93 .616 3.373 11.375 Valid N (listwise)

30

N

Minimum

Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

Variance Skewness

Statistic Statistic Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error Statistic Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

V1 30 2 7 4.38 .701 2.060 4.2436 .898 .383 Valid N (listwise)

30

N

Minimum

Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

Variance Skewness

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic

Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic

Std. Error

V1 30 1 6 4. 86 .701 2.263 5.1211 .898 .420 Valid N (listwise)

30



356

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of The Concept Mapping Group Post-test Administration

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic

V1 30 20 30 25.97 .526 2.883 8.309 Valid N (listwise)

30

The reliability of the tests was calculated afterwards using Cronbach Alpha formula (Table 14).

Table 14: Reliability of the Lexical Inference and Concept Map Phrasal Verb Post-test Administration Reliability Statistics

Cronbach Alpha Number of Items Lexical Inferencing post-test 0.79 30

Concept Mapping Post-test 0.81 30

Figures 1 and 2 also show the results.

Figure 1: Phrasal verb post-test Scores of the Lexical Inference Group

Figure 2: Phrasal verb Post-test Scores of the Concept Mapping Group



357

Checking the Normality Four assumptions should be met before one decides to run parametric tests; 1) The data should be measured on an interval scale; 2) The subjects should be independent that is to say none of them participates in more than one

group; 3) The data should enjoy normal distribution; and 4) The groups should have homogeneous variances (Field; 2009). The present data are measured on an interval scale and none of the subjects participate in more than one group. The assumption of normality is also met. As displayed in Table 15 the ratios of skewness and kurtosis over their respective standard errors are within the ranges of +/- 2.

Table 15: Normality Table GROUP N Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Std. Error

Normality Statistic Std. Error

Normality

Lexical INFERENCING

PET 29 -0.35 0.43 -0.80 -1.25 0.85 -1.48 PRETEST 29 0.13 0.43 0.31 -1.17 0.85 -1.39 POSTTEST 29 -0.18 0.43 -0.41 -1.01 0.85 -1.20

CONCEPT MAPPING

PET 29 0.08 0.43 0.19 -1.32 0.85 -1.56 PRETEST 29 -0.06 0.43 -0.13 -1.05 0.85 -1.24 POST-TEST 29 -0.58 0.43 -1.33 -0.57 0.85 -0.67

The assumption of homogeneity of variances will be discussed when reporting the results of the independent t-test. Pretest of Phrasal Verbs Comparing Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups' Mean scores on Phrasal Verbs Pretest An independent t-test is run to compare the lexical inferencing and concept mapping groups' mean scores on phrasal verbs pretest in order to prove that the two groups enjoyed the same level of knowledge on phrasal verbs prior to the main study. As displayed in Table 16 the mean scores for lexical inference and concept mapping groups on phrasal verbs pretest are 4.38 and 4.86 respectively.

Table 16: Descriptive Statistics of Phrasal Verbs Pretest

(Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups) Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean INFERENCE 29 4.38 2.060 .383 CONCEPT MAPPING 29 4.86 2.263 .420

The results of the independent t-test (t (56) = .84, P = .39> .05, r=.11) it represents a weak effect size) indicate that there was not any significant difference between lexical inferencing and concept mapping groups on the pretest of phrasal verbs. Thus, it can be concluded that the two



358

groups enjoyed the same level of knowledge on phrasal verbs prior to the study. The results are shown in table 17.

Table 17: Independent t-test of Phrasal Verbs Pretest (Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed .398 .531 .849 56 .399 .483 .568 -.656 1.621

Equal variances not assumed

.849 55.511 .399 .483 .568 -.656 1.621

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances is met (Levene's F = .39, P = .53> .05). That is why the first row of Table 17, i.e. "Equal variances assumed" is reported.

Figure 3 also shows the results.

Figure 3: Phrasal Verbs Pretest of Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups

Post-test of Phrasal Verbs Comparing Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups' mean scores on Phrasal verbs Post-test An independent t-test is run to compare the lexical inference and concept mapping groups' mean scores on phrasal verbs post-test in order to probe any significant difference between the impact of using concept mapping and lexical inference on EFL learners' retention of phrasal verbs. As displayed in Table 18 the mean scores for lexical inference and concept mapping groups on Phrasal Verbs Post-test are 25.34 and 26 respectively.



359

Table 18: Descriptive Statistics of Phrasal Verbs Post-test (Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups)

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean INFERENCE 29 25.34 2.755 .512 CONCEPT MAPPING 29 26.00 2.928 .544

The results of the independent t-test (t (56) = .87, P = .38> .05, r = .11 it represents a weak effect size) indicate that there is not any significant difference between lexical inferencing and concept mapping groups on the phrasal verbs Post-test (Table 19).

Table 19: Independent t-test Post-test of Phrasal Verbs Inference and Concept Groups Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed .022 .884 .878 56 .384 .655 .747 -.840 2.151

Equal variances not assumed

.878 55.795 .384 .655 .747 -.840 2.151

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances is met (Levene's F = .02, P = .88> .05). That is why the first row of Table 19, i.e. "Equal variances assumed" is reported.

Figure 4 also shows the results.

Figure 4: Comparing Lexical Inferencing and Concept Mapping Groups' Mean Scores on Phrasal Verbs Post-test



360

Construct Validity A factor analysis through varimax rotation is carried out to underlying construct of the PET, pretest and post-test. The SPSS extracted two factors as the underlying construct of the three tests employed in this study. This two-factor solution accounts for 90.68 percent of the total variance (Table 20).

Table 20: Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

1 1.655 55.154 55.154 1.655 55.154 55.154 1.652 55.070 55.070 2 1.066 35.532 90.686 1.066 35.532 90.686 1.068 35.617 90.686 3 .279 9.314 100.000

As displayed in Table 20 the pretest and post-test of phrasal verbs load on the first factor indicating that they are tapping on the same underlying construct. In other words, they are measuring the same underlying construct. These results indicate that the tests developed to measure the phrasal verbs enjoy construct validity. The PET general language proficiency test loads on the second factor which due to the nature of the PET test can be labeled as general language proficiency factor. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION According to the results it has been revealed that lexical inferencing and concept-mapping strategies help the learners to retain the target phrasal verbs. The results of the post-tests of both groups indicated that these two strategies can significantly enhance the retention of phrasal verbs. Furthermore, based on the statistical analysis, which has been done in order to compare the results of the two post-tests, there was no significant difference between the effects of these two strategies on retention of the target phrasal verbs. This outcome is in line with the findings of Kalaa (2012). She studied the effects of the "word association" and the "lexical inferencing" strategies on EFL learners' phrasal verbs learning and retention. The findings indicated that both of the word association and lexical inferencing strategies helped the learners to learn and recall the target phrasal verbs. The results of the phrasal verb post-tests strongly indicated that learning the phrasal verbs through these strategies was effective and efficient. Furthermore, the participants who were exposed to these strategies exhibited enhanced retention of the phrasal verbs. Similarly, regarding the results of statistical analysis, it can be concluded that there was not any significant difference between two groups on learning and retention of the target phrasal verbs. This result also corroborates the findings of Cooper (1999). His study showed that successful learners use lexical inferencing strategies to learn idioms.



361

Hence, applying suitable strategies such as concept mapping or lexical inference (guessing meaning of words in their natural context) involves learners in learning process, which can be more helpful than presenting them long lists of words and their meanings to memorize. Also, incorporation of strategies in course books and curriculum may result in intellectual analytical learners that through using strategies can overcome their learning difficulties. At the end, it is worth mentioning that like any study, this research faced a limitation, which has to be taken into consideration while attempting to generalize its findings. The researcher did not have any control over the age of the participants and they were only adults with age range of 17 to 31. Therefore, the findings of the study may not be generalizable to other age groups.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The following are suggested for further studies:

1. In this study, the whole procedure from the test of homogeneity to the post-test lasted about two months. The results of the study might have been influenced by the lack of time to more practice. Besides, teachers may need to spend more time in teaching students to take risks in guessing phrasal verbs from the context or practicing concept mapping in their learning. Therefore, future research can be carried out by lengthening the training time.

2. In this study only hand-made concept maps were used while nowadays there is a growing interest in using computer-assisted concept maps which seems be less time-consuming. So, further research can be conducted using computer-assisted concept maps to investigate the results.

3. The focus of the present study was exclusively on the effect of concept mapping and lexical inferencing strategies on retention of phrasal verbs. So, further research can be conducted on the result of teaching other types of vocabularies through these two strategies.

REFERENCES Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and

testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472. Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1988). Schema Theory and ESL Writing. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (pp. 73-‐92).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto. J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL

reading, TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-76. Cooper, T.C. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 1999, 233-

262. Dormer, S. (2005). Concept mapping. Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory: ACT Center

for Teaching and Learning. Fahim, M., & Heidari, F. (2006). The impact of map training as a post- listening strategy on EFL

learners' listening comprehension. Zaban- va-Adab, 24, 106-122. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. SAGE. London.



362

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ghanizadeh, A. (2007). On validation of concept map as an assessment tool of L2 reading comprehension: A triangulation approach. Unpublished MA thesis, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran.

Halliday, M. A., K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Language

Development Series. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Kalaa, Z. (2012). The comparative effects of the word association and lexical inferencing

strategies on EFL learners' phrasal verbs learning and retention. Unpublished MA thesis. Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Kinchin, I. M. (2000). Using concept maps to reveal understanding: a two tier analysis. School Science Review, 81, 41-46.

Koprowski, M. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary course books. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322-332.

Liu, P., & Chen, C. (2008). The Effects of Computer-Assisted Concept Mapping on EFL Students’ English Reading. Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4724-4739). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Marriott, R., & Torres, P. (2008). Enhancing Collaborative and Meaningful Language Learning through Concept Mapping. In A. Okada, S. B. Shum and T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography-software tools and mapping techniques. Springer-Verlag.

McAleese, R. (1998). The knowledge arena as an extension to the concept map; reflection in action. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(3), 251-272.

Moon, R. (1997). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R.P. (1985).

Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46.

Pishghadam, R., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2006). On the impact of concept mapping as a pre-writing activity on EFL learners' writing ability. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 103-130.

Park, S. (1995). Implications of learning strategy research for designing computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 435-456.Reese, D. D. (2004). Assessment and concept map structure: Interaction between subscores and well-formed mental models. Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Richards, J. C; Platt, J., & Platt, H. (2000). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15 (1), 1–35.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



363

Soria, J. (2001). A study of Ilokano learners' lexical inferencing procedures through think-aloud. Second Language Studies, 19 (2), 77-110.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language in computer-supported communication: Theory meets reality. Language Awareness, 11(2), 114-131. Retrieved January 1, 2011 from: http:// www/ channelview.publication.net

Zimmaro, D. M., & Cawley, J. M. (1998). Concept map module. Schreyer institute for innovation in learning, The Pennsylvania State University. Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.

THE COMPARATIVE IMPACT OF CONCEPT MAPPING AND LEXICAL INFERENCING ON EFL LEARNERS' RETENTION OF...

Documents

Transcript of THE COMPARATIVE IMPACT OF CONCEPT MAPPING AND LEXICAL INFERENCING ON EFL LEARNERS' RETENTION OF...