View Content #24565

By Linda Forrest, CASLS Research Director

Among the best strategies to improve learning are those that involve the elaboration of new material. Elaboration consists of enhancing meaning by relating new concepts to ones already learned, adding to the new material or restructuring it. One type of elaboration strategy is semantic mapping, also called cognitive mapping or graphic organizers. The strategy is based on a theory of learning developed by R. C. Anderson (discussed in Anderson, Spiro, & Montague, 1984) that views knowledge as an interconnected network of abstract mental structures. To construct a semantic map, a learner writes a word or phrase in the middle of a blank page, then adds associated words and phrases around the central concept, interconnecting them with lines to provide a visual representation of the learner’s internal knowledge map.

Over the years, thousands of studies have examined the ability of semantic mapping activities to improve learning outcomes. While many studies have had positive results, in others, the benefits of semantic mapping were not clear-cut. For example, Morin and Goebel (2001) compared communicative activities alone to communicative activities plus semantic mapping for learning L2 vocabulary. They found no immediate benefits for the group using communicative activities plus semantic mapping, but noted that learners in this group ranked their familiarity with the L2 vocabulary more highly. A review of the many research studies (Moore & Readence, 1984) showed large differences in results depending on the techniques used to implement the activity. In the studies they reviewed, the activity was more effective after the presentation of content rather than before and worked best with vocabulary learning and more mature students.

More recently, El-Koumy (1999) compared the effect of semantic mapping activities in an EFL context using three different types of implementation: teacher-initiated, student-mediated, or teacher-student interactive. The teacher-student interactive implementation produced significantly better learning outcomes. In this implementation , the teacher elicited student responses with guided questions and used them to construct a semantic map on the board. Thus the map was co-constructed by teacher and learners working together. The final product was unique to a particular time and place and representative of the specific knowledge of a unique group of people.

In summary, this study points to the critical importance of implementation technique. It suggests that classroom activities, such as semantic mapping, have the best chance of impacting learners’ knowledge when they implemented intentionally and interactively.

References

Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J. & Montague W. E. (Eds.). (1984). Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

El-Koumy, A. S. (1999). Effects of three semantic mapping strategies on EFL students' reading comprehension. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), USA.

Moore, D. W. & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.

Morin, R. & Goebel, J. (2001). Basic vocabulary instruction: Teaching strategies or teaching words? Foreign Language Annals, 34( 1), 8-17.