Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:06:54.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of computer-aided concept mapping on EFL learners’ lexical diversity: A process writing experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2021

Mohammad Hassanzadeh Open the ORCID record for Mohammad Hassanzadeh [Opens in a new window] ,
Elahe Saffari Open the ORCID record for Elahe Saffari [Opens in a new window]  and
Saeed Rezaei Open the ORCID record for Saeed Rezaei [Opens in a new window]
Mohammad Hassanzadeh
Affiliation:
Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Iran (mhassanzadeh@vru.ac.ir)
Elahe Saffari
Affiliation:
Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Iran (elahe.saffari89@gmail.com)
Saeed Rezaei
Affiliation:
Sharif University of Technology, Iran (srezaei@sharif.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nowadays, many second/foreign language (L2) academic writing instruction programs place a high premium on pre-writing strategies. The current study examined the effect of software-supported concept mapping on lexical diversity (LD) of English learners’ argumentative essays within a process writing framework. Additionally, the relationship between the learners’ LD and their overall writing quality was investigated. To this end, 53 university English as a foreign language (EFL) undergraduates were assigned to a computer-aided concept mapping (CACM) and a traditional outlining condition over a span of seven weeks. The CACM group was instructed through the graphic organizer software Inspiration®, whereas the comparison group underwent outlining instruction for planning their writing tasks. Measure of textual lexical diversity (MTLD) was used to assess the so-called D values of the assignments. The results revealed that the CACM group outperformed the outlining group in terms of LD scores. Also, no relationship was found between LD and overall quality of the essays. The findings provide L2 researchers and teachers with insights into understanding the use of CACM strategy in process writing. Moreover, exploiting MTLD afforded our experiment the opportunity to counteract potential pitfalls associated with text size. Further implications for the L2 teacher are also discussed.

Keywords

computer-aided concept mapping (CACM)Inspiration®lexical diversityMTLDoutliningwriting quality
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 214 - 228
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ausubel, D. P. (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ballance, O. J. (2021) Narrow reading, vocabulary load and collocations in context: Exploring lexical repetition in concordances from a pedagogical perspective. ReCALL, 33(1): 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344020000117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blunt, J. R. & Karpicke, J. D. (2014) Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3): 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T. & Chen, S. F. (2001) Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1): 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. (2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59(2): 307–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00508.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2012) Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29(2): 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S. & Jarvis, S. (2011) Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4): 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210378031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deBoer, F. (2014) Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47: 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dujsik, D. (2008) The effects of pre-writing strategy training guided by computer-based procedural facilitation on ESL students’ strategy use, writing quantity, and writing quality. University of South Florida, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1): 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104026130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2): 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K., Boykin, A., Good, K., Hughes, M., MacVittie, N., Sacco, D., Ahn, S. Y. & Chirinos, D. (2016) Emphasizing planning for essay writing with a computer-based graphic organizer. Exceptional Children, 82(2): 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915591697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H. H. & Green, S. B. (2015) Psychometric evaluation of lexical diversity indices: Assessing length effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3): 840–852. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0280 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H. H. & West, T. M. (2013) Measuring lexical diversity in narrative discourse of people with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(2): S397–S408. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0083)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, M. E. (2015) Concept mapping: Effects on content knowledge and engagement with content in elementary students’ persuasive writing. University of Kentucky, doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Gebril, A. & Plakans, L. (2016) Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24: 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, M. C. (2017) The contribution of lexical diversity to college-level writing. TESOL Journal, 8(4): 899–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodfellow, R., Lamy, M. & Jones, G. (2002) Assessing learners’ writing using lexical frequency. ReCALL, 14(1): 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002001118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S., Collins, A. A. & Rigby-Wills, H. (2017) Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83(2): 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1954) Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire: essai de mèthodologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V. & Hughery, J. (1981) Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002) Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1): 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, R. (2012) Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens? Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1): 60–69. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v01.1.koizumi CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, S. Y. & Cifuentes, L. (2009) The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2): 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T., Cheng, C.-C. & Chang, K.-E. (2015) Computer-supported cooperative prewriting for enhancing young EFL learners’ writing performance. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2): 134–155. https://doi.org/10125/44421 Google Scholar
Liu, P.-L. (2011) A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 57(4): 2548–2558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P.-L., Chen, C.-J. & Chang, Y.-J. (2010) Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54(2): 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, H.-D. (1972) Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Wortschatzumfang und Länge eines Textes. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 2(8): 73–79.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. J. (2017) Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 541–561. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D. D. & Richards, B. J. (1997) A new measure of lexical diversity. In Ryan, A. & Wray, A. (eds.), Evolving models of language: Papers from the annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at the University of Wales, Swansea, September 1996. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Multilingual Matters, 58–71.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. & Richards, B. (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N. & Durán, P. (2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. (2005) An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). University of Memphis, unpublished PhD. Retrieved from ’¼https://umdrive.memphis.edu/pmmccrth/public/Phil’s%20papers.htm?uniq¼xq6bv Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. (2007) vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4): 459–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2): 381–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKee, G., Malvern, D. & Richards, B. (2000) Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(3): 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/15.3.323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, J. D. (2002) Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4): 548–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B. & Johansen, G. T. (1983) The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5): 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojima, M. (2006) Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34(4): 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olinghouse, N. G. & Wilson, J. (2013) The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1): 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A. J. & Leonard, L. B. (2002) Lexical diversity in the spontaneous speech of children with specific language impairment: Application of D. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(5): 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/075)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polio, C. & Friedman, D. A. (2017) Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747293 Google Scholar
Reader, W. & Hammond, N. (1994) Computer-based tools to support learning from hypertext: Concept mapping tools and beyond. Computers & Education, 22(1–2): 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(94)90078-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J. & Griffin, T. D. (2012) Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4): 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1978) Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In Cotton, J. W. & Klatzky, R. (eds.). Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 37–60.Google Scholar
Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W. & Weber, R. J. (2001) Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of students’ connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1): 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2014) Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4): 913–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sung, Y. L. (2008) A case study on the use of inspiration to assisted college EFL students’ writing. Fu-Jen University, unpublished master’s thesis.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (2013) Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: An exploration of the validity of D, MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability. In Jarvis, S. & Daller, M. (eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vögelin, C., Jansen, T., Keller, S. D., Machts, N. & Möller, J. (2019) The influence of lexical features on teacher judgements of ESL argumentative essays. Assessing Writing, 39: 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. (2014) The relationship between lexical diversity and EFL writing proficiency. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 9: 65–88. http://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume09/Article03.pdf Google Scholar
Winn, W. & Snyder, D. (1996) Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In Jonassen, D. H. (ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan, 112–142.Google Scholar
Yu, G. (2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2): 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. U. (1944) The statistical study of literary vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zumbrunn, S. & Krause, K. (2012) Conversations with leaders: Principles of effective writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65(5): 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hassanzadeh et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S3

Download Hassanzadeh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 368.7 KB