Basic Concepts of the Semantic Map

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed in this chapter includes basic concepts of the semantic map, the effects of the semantic map on reading comprehension, and the related empirical studies on the use of semantic mapping strategies.

Basic Concepts of the Semantic Map

Semantic maps, one kind of mapping strategies, were also known as concept maps (Novak & Gowin, 1984; Sinatra, 2000), semantic webbing or networking

(Freeman & Reynolds, 1980), or graphic organizers/structured overviews (Alvermann, 1981). They were visual and spatial displays designed to facilitate the teaching and leaning of textual material. In the following sections, the definition, history and rationale, types, and instructional procedure of the semantic map were discussed.

Definition of the Semantic Map

Antonacci (1991) defined semantic mapping as “a visual representation of knowledge; a picture of conceptual relationships; a pulling together of thoughts; a knowledge map to view a range of ideas; and a prototype of knowledge stored in semantic memory” (p.174). It was a strategy that activated students’ background knowledge through brainstorming and discussion (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986). It was a strategy that facilitated text comprehension by selecting, organizing, and presenting information of a written work so that it could be understood, remembered, and applied (Crandall, 1992).It is was a strategy that stimulated students’ thinking by encouraging them to integrate new knowledge into information learned previously (Polloway & Patton, 1993).

Through the use of lines, arrows, and a spatial arrangement, semantic maps were used to describe text content, structure, and key conceptual relationships (Darch &

Eaves, 1986; Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000; Hoover & Rabideau, 1995).Within

this framework, a map of relationships among words, phrases, or concepts was

developed. The relationships provided a meaningful structure for students to expand their knowledge associated with the main concept easily. This, in turn, provided information to the teacher concerning new concepts or skills that required additional development (Hoover & Rabideau, 1995).

History and Rationale of the Semantic Map

The semantic map rooted in Ausubel’s (1968) advance organizer (AO), which was a 500-word introductory prose passage including the most important background knowledge. Ausubel proposed AO to facilitate students’ learning of expository text.

His rationale for using AOs was that background knowledge or cognitive structure of the learner played a critical role during the learning process. Students needed to either create a new schema or activate an existing one before they could learn new

information. This point of view was consisted with the schema theory.

The AO, as an instructional technique, was used to provide students with a meaningful conceptual framework during the pre-reading stage, with which they were able to form relations between new information and their background knowledge (Wittrock, 1992). “The ultimate goal of an AO is to help a learner fit new, and

increasingly more difficult material, into his existing cognitive structures” (Hartley &

Davis, 1976, p. 239). When the reader was not aware of which structure was relevant and when the text was not explicit in presenting the information, then an AO could be an appropriate pre-reading intervention and build a bridge between a student’s prior knowledge and the new information to be learned in the text (Graves, Cooke, &

LaBerge, 1983).

Later, Barron (1969) and Earle (1969) proposed that a graphic display of words showing a hierarchical organization of important concepts would aid students more than a written paragraph providing an overview of what is to come, and thus

developed the structured overview. This “structured overview” (SO) differed from an

AO in its ability to illustrate relations among key concepts found in text with the spatial format and key vocabulary (Estes, Mills, and Barron, 1969).

Later, Moore and Readence (1984) reviewed 23 studies through meta-analysis procedures and concluded that SOs demonstrated greater effects in the post-reading position than the pre-reading position. Thus, the term “structured overview” was eventually changed to “graphic organizer” as the instructional position switched from pre-reading to post-reading (Rice, 1994; Robinson, 1998). In other words, graphic organizer could be used in pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading positions, while advance organizers and structured overviews were usually used in pre-reading position (Doyle, 1999; Kuo, 2003).

In summary, the semantic map inherited the rationale and hypotheses of advance organizer, structured overview, and graphic organizers. That is, the semantic map had its root in cognitive psychology or schema theory and shared the same features with the hierarchical presentation theory, suggesting that information provided in a systematic, logical manner would enhance understanding and retention (Kuo, 2003;

McCarthy-Tucker, 1992).

Types of the Semantic Map

Mapping strategies could facilitate learners’ comprehension on different text structures with different types of maps. The maps applied in the present study were discussed as follows (see Appendix A), including story map, problem and solution map, compare/contrast map, classification map, and theme map.

When the story elements, including setting, problems, goal, action, and outcomes

were complicated and not arranged in canonical sequence, it was hard for readers to

comprehend the story (Riley, 1993). The story map helped learners to comprehend

and create a story by providing readers “with a graphic representation of story

elements” (Staal, 2000, p.27) to rearrange and simplify the story. As to the problem

and solution map and the comparison/contrast map, the former presented a problem (including possible reasons), attempted solutions, and results. The latter was used to represent comparative and contrastive information by “indicating or inferring features about two or more aspects of a central topic” and showing “likenesses and differences relative to each feature” (Sinatra, 2000, p. 267).

The classification map was initially proposed as a “semantic network

representation” by Pearson and Johnson (1978) and called “classification map” by Sinatra et al. (1986) and Sinatra (2000). It helped learners to classify or categorize one central topic into class, subclass, attribute, and example. It also showed a clear

hierarchy of information (Sinatra, 2000). This map was usually used to comprehend the expository text. The theme map, also called topic development map or spider map by Sinatra (2000), was used to “display elements and details about persons, places, or things around the central theme” (Sinatra et al., 1986). The main topic was put in the center and associated elements or details were arranged around, showing coordinate ideas and then subordinate (detailed) information. It was usually used for descriptive texts.

Instructional Procedure of the Semantic Map

Hanf (1971) was the first to develop the mapping procedure, which originally was designed to improve the teaching of study skills. She also suggested using semantic mapping as a kind of advance organizer (a pre-reading strategy) to improve comprehension. It could also be used as an effective substitute for traditional

note-taking and outlining (Heimlich & Pittelmann, 1986). According to Hanf (1971),

constructing a map was an exercise in critical thinking and it aided the student's

judgments and decisions about the material. Her mapping procedure contained three

basic steps: identification of main idea or primary thesis, identification of secondary

categories or principal parts, and identification of supporting details. That is, when

reading, the reader needed to decide the map's starting point by locating the primary thesis or main idea first. Next he or she determined the secondary categories or principal parts. After labeling these parts, the reader connected them with the main idea and then had a picture of the basic structure of the material. The last step was adding the supporting details. Thus, one could not make a map without being keenly involved in critical thinking while reading (Hanf, 1971).

Heimlich and Pittelman (1986) adopted Hanf’s model and Johnson and Pearson’s vocabulary development procedure (1984) and proposed the following procedures that could be applied to the pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading stages: (1) Introduce the semantic mapping strategy to students. (2) Introduce the topic and key words to be read to students and write them on the blackboard to create a pre-reading map. (3) Print topic headings (secondary categories) on the map. (4) Ask students to share information related to the topic and categorize it into different topic headings. (5) Direct students to read one section of the passage and add the new information from the passage to the appropriate category on the map. (6) Ask students to read the other sections and add the new information to the appropriate category on the map either in groups or individually until finishing reading the whole passage. (7) Ask students to share the maps they create, discuss the differences among them, and revise the map.

(8) Briefly review each category and its relationship to the topic based on the map. (9) Encourage students to use the semantic mapping strategy on their own in note taking, reviewing for a test, or summarizing a passage.

The teaching procedure of the present study adopted the general framework proposed by Hanf (1971) and Heimlich and Pittelman (1986) with some modification.

Semantic Mapping Strategy and Reading Comprehension

A major strength of semantic mapping strategy as a reading or learning strategy

was that it concretely represented abstract or implicit information to show

relationships among related concepts. It helped to activate background knowledge, relate new information to prior knowledge, assist in the storage and retrieval of information, and construct a model for organizing and integrating information (Banikowski & Mehring, 1999). Thus, the following sections aimed to explore the relationships between semantic mapping strategy and the factors affecting reading, namely, learners’ background knowledge, awareness and knowledge of text structures, and application of reading strategies.

Semantic Map and Background knowledge

Ausubel (1968) argued that “the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (p.5), and “what the learner already knows” referred to the learners’ schemata, the organized background knowledge of the learner. A schema was a hypothetical mental structure, a kind of framework, plan, or script (Ajideh, 2003). Schemata were created through experience with people, objects, and events in the world. They were incomplete and were constantly

developed and restructured as new information was received (Pearson & Spiro, 1982).

Basically, schemata functioned during reading by providing “empty slots” that might be thought of as the reader’s expectations about the text (Anderson, 1977; Anderson

& Pearson, 1984).As reading progressed, readers tested and revised their

schema-based expectations to see if they matched the new information (Rumelhart, 1984). Hence, understanding developed as readers progressively revised their initial expectations about the content until they approximated what the author attempted to express (Collins, Brown, & Larkin, 1980).

Schemata were critical to reading comprehension. According to Baker and Brown (1984), the ability to grasp the logical organization of a text was firmly rooted in one’s background knowledge. That is, text comprehension relied on the readers’

background knowledge about the topic of the text and on how they used their

schemata to organize and construct the new information to their existing knowledge.

Several empirical studies argued that readers’ content schemata (reader’s general world knowledge or knowledge of the content of the text) influenced L2 reading comprehension more than linguistic complexity (Carrell, 1987; Floyd & Carrell, 1987;

Johnson, 1982; Pritchard, 1990). In addition, readers’ formal schemata (reader’s knowledge of the text structure or rhetorical form) also affected reading

comprehension (Carrell, 1984a, 1984b; Mandler, 1978; Meyer, 1975). L2 readers tended to comprehend a passage with familiar rhetorical organization more easily than without (Carrell, 1987).

Since background knowledge affected L2 students’ reading comprehension, it was essential for teachers to provide L2 students with appropriate background

knowledge in the pre-reading stage (Chen & Graves, 1995; Floyd & Carrell, 1987). In ESL or EFL reading instruction, the traditional pre-reading tasks tended to focus exclusively on word definition and sentence structure explanation (bottom-up strategy), which were inadequate for L2 learners (Ajideh, 2003). Recently, more attention has shifted to cultural or conceptual difficulties to facilitate L2 students’

reading. However, pre-reading activities should not just provide linguistic or

socio-cultural information for L2 readers; they should also activate existing schematic knowledge (Ajideh, 2003). As Floyd and Carrell (1987) maintained that L2 teachers had to provide their students with appropriate schemata s/he was lacking, and also had to teach students how to build bridges between existing knowledge and new

knowledge. A number of organized pre-reading approaches and methods were proposed in the literature to facilitate the activation of background knowledge in reading, and one of them was semantic mapping strategy.

Then, how did the semantic map activate students’ background knowledge when

reading? Ausubel (1968) originally rationalized the use of the semantic map by

speculating that a learner’s background knowledge greatly influenced the learning process. When the background knowledge expanded and strengthened by

incorporating new information, learning occurred. Besides, DiCecco and Gleason (2002) pointed out it was not enough for students to acquire factual knowledge; they also needed to learn how concepts were connected or related to each other. In other words, identifying the relationships among each concept or category was essential to meaningful learning. To facilitate this process, the semantic map provided learners with a meaningful framework to activate their existing knowledge and integrate this existing knowledge to the new information (Antonacci, 1991; Kim et al., 2004;

Lipson, 1995; Wittrock, 1992). Also, by constructing a map, students learned how the concepts fitted with their background knowledge or prior experiences and how they would be used, applied, and transferred in novel situations.

Furthermore, several researchers suggested that mapping may also facilitate text comprehension when the student lacked schemata of the subject matter (Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, & Lawton, 1977; Gordon, Hansen, & Pearson, 1978).

Bransford (1985) noted that “there are many levels at which a student may lack the background knowledge necessary to understand a text” (p.36). The student might know nothing at all about the topic, or the student might have only a very general sense of the subject, failing to understand the important information of the material.

He suggested that schemata could provide a basis for assimilating information and making inferential elaborations that filled gaps in existing knowledge. In other words, mapping could help students to understand the significance of unfamiliar factual material and also facilitate comprehension and memory (Lipson, 1995).

To sum up, semantic mapping was regarded as a useful teaching technique to increase comprehension. As Prater and Terry (1988) noted:

When we consider the influence of background knowledge upon reading

comprehension, we also must consider effective classroom techniques that activate students’ prior knowledge. Semantic mapping is one of these techniques.

If semantic mapping is used as a strategy to activate, assess and embellish students’ prior knowledge of a topic before reading, it seems to have considerable merit. (p.103)

Semantic Map and Text structure

Reading comprehension was shown to be highly related to one’s understanding of various text structures (Mandler, 1978). “Meaning does not exist until some structure, or organization, is achieved” (Mandler, 1983, p.4). Text structure, the organization of ideas in text, referred to how the ideas in text were organized to

convey a message to the reader (Taylor, 1992; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). According to Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth (1980), text structure functioned as a cuing system that

presented logical connections in text and showed how ideas were linked. It also helped readers to differentiate between important and unimportant information, to see the organization, and to recall information (Leon & Carretero, 1995).

Several empirical studies confirmed the importance of text structure in L1 and L2 reading comprehension. Meyer (1975) proposed that when analyzing a text, readers stored information from text in a hierarchical tree structure corresponding to the content structure of the text (the author’s top-level structure). This content structure, a hierarchical tree-like structure, showed the organized patterns of the content and illustrated how some ideas were superordinate and others subordinate (Raymond, 1993). In her another study (1977a), Meyer gathered evidence that content structure was an important factor in reading comprehension. Other studies conducted to investigate the effects of text structure on L1 reading comprehension also showed that the author’s top-level structure played an essential role in reading comprehension.

That is, skilled readers tended to use the author’s top-level text structure in organizing

their own free recalls. However, readers with low comprehension skills did not.

Furthermore, readers who employed the strategy of using the top-level text structure recalled more information than those who did not (McGee, 1982; Meyer, Brandt, and Bluth, 1980; Taylor, 1980).

Several studies on the effects of text structure revealed that different English text structures affected L2 learners’ reading comprehension (Carrell, 1984b; Chen 1990;

Sharp, 2002). Carrell (1984b) argued that text structure affected ESL learners’ reading recall—the more tightly organized patterns of comparison, causation, and

problem/solution generally facilitated the recall of specific ideas from a text than the

loosely organized collection of descriptions pattern. Chen’s (1990) study indicated that text structure was crucial in facilitating L1 and L2 reading comprehension.

Moreover, those who were aware of text structure made use of it to result in better comprehension and recall. In addition, other previous studies also showed that the training in the top-level text structure improved L2 readers’ awareness and knowledge of text structure and facilitated their reading comprehension (Carrell, 1985; Raymond, 1993). Sharp (2002) thus suggested that providing L2 students with information about English text structure organization would improve students’ English reading

comprehension.

Since the training of top-level structure would improve readers’ awareness and knowledge of text structure, reading instruction should foster students’ text-processing skills to improve their understanding of text structure. Lots of other previous

researches showed that reading comprehension could be significantly facilitated by explicitly teaching readers about text structure and by teaching various strategies for recognizing and utilizing that structure during the reading process (Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991, Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Bartlett, 1978;

Berkowiz, 1986; Boothby & Alvermann, 1984; Gava, 1983; Mosenthal, 1984;

Raymond, 1993; Taylor & Beach, 1984).

Among many strategies, one promising technique was the use of mapping strategy or instructional graphics to convey verbal information in a spatial array (Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991; Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987;

Berkowiz, 1986; Boothby & Alvermann, 1984; Carrell, 1985; Holley & Dansereau, 1984). Instructional graphics included what was called structured overviews, graphic organizers, semantic maps, knowledge maps, networks, schematizations, and so forth.

In all of these techniques, words or phrases were connected with named or unnamed links that conveyed the structure or organization of ideas (Holley & Dansereau, 1984).

Then, how did the semantic map facilitate learners’ awareness and understanding of text structure? Semantic maps were a means of displaying Meyer’s top-level text structure by showing how concepts or ideas (nodes) were connected by relations (links) to mini-networks of propositions. Using branched diagrams, the coordinate, subordinate, and the superordinate relationships among the topic were illustrated, which helped learners understand the top-level text structure and improved their text comprehension. Therefore, Chaffee (1985) viewed mapping as a way to representing and organizing relations among concepts in reading material and emphasized that maps could be used to represent a number of different relationships among a set of concepts in a single pattern. In other words, hierarchically-ordered presentation in a semantic map appeared to be a superior strategy for training the top-level text structure because the map could improve learners’ comprehension by showing the visual depiction of key terms, concepts, and relationships among them (Kim et al., 2004).

Moreover, semantic mapping strategy, regarded as one way of selecting and

organizing information from text (Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000), incorporated

Mayer’s cognitive processes of learning. Mayer (1984) proposed a simple but useful

conceptualization of the cognitive processes involved in meaningful learning from text. According to Mayer (1984), meaningful learning depended on three basic processes: selecting, organizing, and integrating information. Selecting involved paying attention to the information in the text and particularly focusing on

information that was relevant to the goals or task demands of the learning situation.

Organizing, the step to build internal connections between ideas in the text, involved arranging the units of selected information into a coherent mental structure.

Integrating involved connecting the coherently organized information to existing cognitive structures (Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991; Jau, 1997). In short, to comprehend a text successfully, students needed to be able to select, organize, and integrate the text.

According to Hams and Sipay (1990), semantic mapping strategy not only assisted students in activating and assessing their prior knowledge, but also helped them to organize their ideas and integrate information while reading. When

constructing a map, students organized, categorized, analyzed, evaluated, and reasoned critically to connect the new and the known (Pearson & Johnson, 1978;

Rafferty & Fleschner, 1993). Such training made students learn how to select, organize, and integrate information. This process facilitated meaningful learning (Hoover & Rabideau, 1995).

Also, researchers reported that students with and without learning problems have improved in reading comprehension and planning for writing when provided with a map or receiving the mapping training (Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991;

Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Boothby and Alvermann, 1984; Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000; Raphael, Englert, & Kirschner, 1986; Reutzel, 1986;

Richgel, McGee, Lomax, & Sheard, 1987). To sum up, relationships between ideas in

text could be clarified by semantic mapping, which graphically presented the top-level

text structure; therefore, a semantic map could facilitate students’ comprehension of text structure. By constructing the map, students selected, organized, and integrated the new and the old, and therefore led to meaningful learning.

Semantic Map and Reading Strategy

Reading strategies, “a general set of abilities that facilitate active processing of a text’s content” (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamara, 2005, p.68), also played an

important role in reading comprehension. Several previous studies pointed out that students’ reading difficulties might stem from the lack of appropriate instruction and practice in applying reading strategy (Carrell, 1985; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989;

Cotterall, 1990; Jau, 1997; Chia, 2001), and that weak readers could improve their reading competence through training in strategies (Block, 1986; Carrell, Pharis, &

Liberto, 1989; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989). Thus, teaching appropriate strategies in reading class was necessary. One of the successful reading strategies in L1 and L2 reading context was semantic mapping, which “embraces a variety of strategies designed to display graphically information within categories related to a central concept” (Johnson, in the foreword to Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986, p. v).

Semantic mapping was frequently discussed as an effective strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and as an effective study strategy (Heimlich &

Pittleman, 1986). In addition to being effective for vocabulary development, semantic mapping has been demonstrated to be a good alternative to traditional activities used before reading a new passage as well as after reading a passage. The following

discussions focused on the use of semantic mapping strategy in reading class, namely, as a pre-reading strategy and as a during- and post- reading strategy.

Semantic Map as a Pre-reading Strategy

As a pre-reading strategy, semantic mapping aimed to activate learners’ prior

knowledge and to demonstrate the connections that existed among the concepts and

terms to be studied (Langford, Rizzo, & Roth, 2003). In this application, semantic mapping could be used to introduce the key vocabulary words from the passage to be read, and build a bridge between a student’s prior knowledge and the new information in the text as well (Robinson, 1998). It also provided the teacher with an assessment of the students’ prior knowledge, or schema availability, on the topic (Antonacci, 1988). These were consistent with Kirylo and Millet’s (2000) statement that “It is best to pre-teach the overarching concepts and terms that provide the mental framework for building new knowledge structure” (p.181).

In addition, the semantic mapping procedure generally included a brainstorming session, in which students were asked to verbalize their associations to the topic or key words as the teacher mapped (categorizes) them on the chalkboard. This phase of semantic mapping provided students with an opportunity to engage actively in a mental activity which retrieved prior knowledge and visualized the concepts they were retrieving. Also, the students could verify, modify and expand their own

understandings of the concepts through discussion. They related new concepts to their own background knowledge, thus promoting better comprehension. The positive results from several studies conducted to explore the effect of semantic mapping as a reading instruction indicated that the semantic map, as a pre-reading strategy,

facilitated reading comprehension, including delayed recall (Jau, 1997; Lipson, 1995;

Reutzel, 1986; Sinatra et al., 1984).

Semantic Map as a During- and Post-reading Strategy

When used in the during-reading phase, the semantic maps offered visual

representations that made the invisible talk visible. They helped students organize,

reorganize, revise, and modify connections they were making as they processed

information. Furthermore, a semantic map also functioned as a scaffold framework,

which helped students ignore unimportant details, focus on the main ideas, and reduce

anxiety. Within the framework, students also paid more attention to text structure by noticing both the range of the topic and how minor ideas are conceptually linked to major ones in the text structure, which would improve comprehension (Sinatra et al., 1986).

As a post-reading activity, semantic mapping offered students the opportunity to recall, organize, and represent graphically the pertinent information read. In the final phase of the semantic mapping procedure, a class discussion, there was an opportunity for the identification and integration of the new information. Through class discussion, students could collectively modify, amend, or correct a pre-reading map to verify and extend their knowledge (Pearson and Spiro, 1982); teachers could also evaluate students’ comprehension. As Langford et al. (2003) pointed out the class discussion in the mapping instruction fostered a classroom community, where students were

authentically engaged in a meaningful discussion that made connections from prior knowledge to new knowledge and led to comprehension.

Furthermore, the new version, with its different colors and shapes to highlight what readers knew before reading from what they now know, served as a visual representation of the knowledge students have gained. As a result, students could integrate or synthesize what they have studied by comparing pre- and post- instructional semantic maps (Zaid, 1995). Several researchers, investigating the effects of semantic mapping as a post-reading instruction, reported that students who received such instruction either performed better than students in the other study condition or confirmed the value of the semantic map even though there was no significant difference (Coleman, 1995; De Fina, 1999).

Related Empirical Studies on the Semantic Map

Semantic mapping was shown to be a beneficial learning or teaching technique

for native speakers of English at all grade levels in regular and remedial classrooms as

well as for those who were learning-disabled. Students who used semantic mapping manifested considerable improvement in reading comprehension, written expression, and vocabulary development (Alvermann, 1981; Armbruster & Anderson, 1980;

Armbruster et al., 1991; Avery & Baker; 1997; Berkowitz, 1986; Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Kalgren, 1992; Lipson, 1995; Reutzel, 1986; Sinatra et al., 1984; Sinatra et al., 1986). Still, in the ESL and EFL context, several studies were conducted to

investigate the effects of the semantic map instruction on reading comprehension or vocabulary development (Brown & Perry, 1991; Carrell et al., 1989, Crow & Quigley, 1985; El-Koumy, 1999; Jau, 1997; Kuo, 2003; Pappa, Zafiropoulou, & Metallidou, 2003). In the next section, the studies which focused on the role of the semantic map in reading instruction were discussed.

Studies in the L1 Context

The purpose of Alvermann’s study (1981) was to investigate the compensatory effects of mapping strategy on text structure (descriptive structure and

comparison/contrast structure) and on proficiency levels of students. One hundred and twenty-eight tenth graders were selected randomly and ranked from high to low on the basis of their literal comprehension scores. The tests contained immediate free recall and delayed free recall. The results indicated that mapping strategies aided recall when readers must recognize information (descriptive structure) but do not help when reorganization is unnecessary (comparison/contrast text structure). All students, regardless of reading levels, benefited from the mapping instruction.

Unlike Alvermann (1981), Berkowitz (1986) made an investigation of the

effectiveness of mapping strategy on six-grade students’ reading comprehension and

explored whether students, who were asked to construct a map by themselves, had

better performance. In the six-week study, ninety-nine participants were assigned to

four treatments, namely, map construction, map study, question-answer, and rereading.

Unlike the map study treatment where students discussed the map prepared by the teacher, the students in the map construction group created their own map after finishing reading. The results of the immediate and delayed written recalls indicated that the map construction group outperformed the other groups. Berkowitz (1986) concluded that teaching structure strategy facilitated recall and the map strategy would be more effective when students constructed the maps.

Later, in order to explore the effects of semantic mapping strategy incorporating direct instruction on below-level college students’ reading comprehension, Lipson conducted a study in 1995. Forty below-level college freshmen, with tenth-grade reading achievement, were assigned randomly to three groups (the mapping group, the functional approach group, and the traditional group conditions). The mapping group received mapping instruction through direct instruction and needed to construct their own maps after reading. The students in the functional approach group

comprehended articles with the study guides, which addressed knowledge of the article. They had to answer the study guides questions first, and then they constructed study guides questions in groups and by individual. The students in the control group simply read and discussed the reading passages. The results showed that students exposed to the mapping intervention demonstrated superior post-treatment performance than other two groups.

Different from other studies (Alvermann, 1981; Berkowitz, 1986; Lipson, 1995),

Guastello, Beasley, and Sinatra (2000) conducted a study to examine the effect of

mapping strategy on low-achieving students’ science content comprehension. One

hundred and twenty-four seventh graders, who were evaluated as low achievers in

reading, writing, and science achievement, were randomly assigned to two groups, the

mapping group and the traditional group. The mapping group, with the teacher’s

assistance, constructed the map as they engaged in reading and discussion. While the

control group was taught with a traditional teacher-directed delivery system: K-W-L strategy (what students already knew, what they wanted to learn, and what they learned). The results revealed that concept mapping improved comprehension scores of low-achieving seventh graders’ science content.

Based on the studies discussed above, it was suggested that the mapping instruction could be applied to all levels of students, from elementary students

(Berkowitz, 1986) to college students (Lipson, 1995), from below-achieving students (Lipson, 1995; Guastello, Beasley, and Sinatra, 2000) to regular students (Alvermann, 1981; Berkowitz, 1986). Semantic mapping strategy was also used in different subject areas, from language learning to science studies (Guastello, Beasley, and Sinatra, 2000). It was obvious that teachers’ direction or teachers’ model would promote the effects of mapping strategy on reading comprehension (Guastello, Beasley, and Sinatra, 2000; Lipson, 1995). Furthermore, map construction training showed to be effective to improve learners’ reading ability (Berkowitz, 1986; Guastello, Beasley, and Sinatra, 2000; Lipson, 1995).

Studies in the L2 Context

Carrell et al. (1989) conducted a study in the ESL context to examine the combined effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on reading.

Twenty-six high-intermediate level adult ESL students of various native language backgrounds participated in the study. The experimental group received a four-day training in metacognitive awareness and regulation of semantic mapping strategy to activate background knowledge while the control group received no strategy training but participated in pre- and post-testing. Results showed that the combined effects of metacognitive and semantic mapping strategy instruction were effective in enhancing reading comprehension.

Unlike Carrell et al. (1989), Jau (1997) conducted a 4-month study to examine

the effects of the mapping strategy (semantic mapping and semantic feature analysis) on the reading comprehension and vocabulary development of different types of English expository texts (narrative structure and comparison/contrast structure) to college freshmen in Taiwan. The participants were one hundred three non-English majors and divided into the experimental and control groups. The experimental group took the mapping strategy training while the control group was only taught in the traditional method with the identical teaching materials. The results revealed that the experimental group excelled the control group in the reading of comparison/contrast texts and the vocabulary development during the post-testing stage.

In order to investigate the effects of the semantic mapping strategy on reading comprehension among EFL senior high school students in Taiwan, Kuo (2003)

conducted a single-group design study. Different from two previous studies (Carrell et al., 1989; Jau, 1997), eighty-four eleventh-grade participants received 6-week

semantic mapping training with guiding maps provided by the researcher. The guiding map presented the basic structural framework of the article to help students

comprehend the content. The results confirmed the effects of the mapping instruction on reading comprehension and participants’ positive attitudes toward the semantic mapping instruction.

An examination of the three studies conducted in the L2 context revealed that the

semantic mapping instruction indeed facilitated students’ reading comprehension even

though the characteristics of the participants and the duration of the experiment were

different. One factor that might make semantic mapping effective in the three studies

was that semantic mapping was taught through direct instruction. Besides, except for

Kuo’s (2003) study, in which students were not asked to create their own maps,

participants in the other two studies (Carrell et al., 1989; Jau, 1997) were given the

chance to construct their own maps. Asking students to construct a map independently

after reading, which could be viewed as a training in metacognitive awareness, also gave rise to the effectiveness of semantic mapping strategy on students’ reading comprehension.

Much different from other studies discussed previously, the purpose of the five-month study conducted by EL-Koumy (1999) was to compare the effects of three classroom methods of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ reading

comprehension. One hundred and eighty-seven college freshmen in Egypt were randomly assigned to three treatment groups, namely, teacher-initiated semantic mapping, student-mediated mapping, and teacher-student interactive mapping. In the teacher-initiated semantic mapping group, students were provided with a guiding map made by the teacher to help them comprehend the article. In the student-mediated mapping group, students had to construct a map by themselves when reading. In the teacher-student interactive mapping group, the teacher and students constructed a map together when reading. The posttest results showed that the teacher-student interactive semantic mapping group significantly outperformed the other two groups. That is, the teacher-student interactive semantic mapping method was the best classroom method to teach semantic mapping strategy to EFL students.

For semantic mapping strategy to be effective, the present study used both the

teacher-student interactive mapping method and the student-mediated mapping

method based on the eight studies discussed previously. The former was used to teach

semantic mapping strategy through direct instruction (Carrell et al., 1989; EL-Koumy,

1999; Guastello et al., 2000; Jau, 1997; Lipson, 1995), and the latter was to evaluate

the effects of learners’ independent application of semantic mapping strategy on

reading comprehension (Berkowitz, 1986; Carrell et al., 1989; Jau, 1997). In addition,

text structure (organization of the text) affected the effects of mapping strategies on

L1 and L2 learners’ reading comprehension. For L1 learners, mapping strategies

helped them comprehend descriptive text (less-organized) better than comparison text, which was considered well-organized (Alvermann, 1981). But for L2 learners, their performance on comparison text was better than narrative text; the latter was less-organized (Jau, 1997).Thus, the present study aimed to explore the effects of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ comprehension on well- and

less-organized texts. No studies discussed previously, however, explored the effects of

difficulty level of a text on semantic mapping instruction, so the present study would

also evaluate the role of text complexity in the semantic mapping instruction to

substantiate the effects of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ reading

comprehension.