Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number1 March 2020                                                    Pp. 138-153
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.12

Full Paper PDF 

 

The Effect of Semantic Mapping and Question Generation Teaching Strategies on English
as a Second Language Tertiary Students’ Reading achievement
 

 

Sabah Salman Sabbah
English Language Center, Foundation Program
Community College of Qatar
Doha, State of Qatar

 

 

Abstract:
This study aimed at investigating the effect of two strategies of teaching reading: ‘semantic mapping’ and  ‘question generation’ on the reading achievement of a sample of 40 female students enrolling in two classes in Level 2 English as a Second Language Foundation Program at the Community College of Qatar. The researcher of the current study tried to find ways to help solve the problems of students’ low achievement in reading comprehension tests.   Convenient sampling was used to select the two classes as the researcher herself was teaching them. The two classes of 20 students each constituted two experimental groups. One class was taught by the semantic mapping strategy, and the other was taught by students’ question-generation strategy.  A pre-posttests design was used in both experimental groups.  T-test computed on the pretests in both classes revealed that the groups were equivalent. The researcher established the validity and reliability of all the components of the study: the pre-posttest and the instructional material.  The instructional material selected for the intervention consisted of four extra expository texts, which are not written in students’ textbooks. After analyzing students’ results on the pre-post tests using two T-Test statistical analyses, it was found out that there were significant differences in the mean scores of each group on the pre-post tests, which reveals that each individual strategy has significantly influenced the group achievement.  In order to investigate which teaching strategy was significantly better than the other was a third T-test on the post-tests, mean scores in both groups were computed. The results were in favor of the experimental group, which was taught by the Semantic Mapping Strategy. In light of these findings, the researcher suggested several recommendations directed to ESL instructors, curricula designers, and researchers
KeywordsSemantic Maps, Question Generation, Foundation Level, EFL students, Community College of Qatar 

Cite as: Sabbah, S. S.  (2020). The Effect of Semantic Mapping and Question Generation Teaching Strategies on English as a Second Language Tertiary Students’ Reading achievement. Arab World English Journal, 11 (1) 138-153.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.12

References

Avgerinou, L. & Ericson, D. (1997). A Review of the Concept of Visual Literacy. British       Journal of Educational Technology 28, (4), 280-291.

Al-Debes, I. (2005). “The Effect of Using Reciprocal Teaching and Semantic Mapping Reading Strategies on the Development of English Comprehension Upper Basic Stage Students.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Amman Arab University for Graduate Studies.

Brisk, M., & Harrington, M.  (2000). Literacy and Bilingualism: A Handbook for all Teachers.  Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chularut, P. & DeBacker, T. (2004).  The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language.  Contemporary Educational Psychology. 29 (3), 248-263.

Cluston. M. (1997).   Language Learning Strategies: An overview for L2 teachers.  The internet TESL Journal.  3,  December, 8-9

Darayseh, M. (2003).”The Effects of a Proposed Program   Based on Semantic Mapping and Brainstorming Strategies in Developing the English Writing Ability and Attitudes of the First Scientific Secondary Students”. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Amman Arab University Amman.

El-Koumy, A. (1999). The Effect of the Semantic Mapping Strategies on EFL Students Reading Comprehension College Fishermen College Instruction. ERIC.

Ellis, E. (2000). “Framing Main Ideas and  Essential Details to Promote Comprehension”,  The Framing Routine .  Published by Masterminds, LLC.   Available at http://www.ldonline.org/article/5765

Grabe,W., & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for Academic Purposes: Guidelines for EFL/ESL                      teachers.  In M. Celece-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Secondary Foreign                     Language (3rd ed), 187-204. USA: Boston  Heinle and Heinle.

Harper, K., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40, (8), 776–791.

Hismanoglu, M. (2000). Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language. The Internet TESL            Journal, VI, 8, August . Available at http://iteslj.org/

Harp, B., & Brewer, J (1996) Reading and Writing: Technique for the Connection, New York, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Hartman, J. (2004). Metacognition in Learning and Instruction. Dordrechet: Kluwer Academic    Publishers.

Hammash, H. (2004) “The Effect of a Proposed Training Program on Developing English Language Teacher’s Knowledge Level of Three Reading Strategies and Their Implementation in the Classroom.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Amman Arab University for Graduate Studies

Kang, S. (2004). Using Visual Organizers to Enhance EFL Instruction. ELT Journal, 58 (1), 58-67.

Kawabata, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading Strategies. The Internet TESL Journal, xiii (2).  Available at http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kawabata-ReadingStrategies.html

King, A. (2000). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology.  83, 307–317.

Kenwood Academy High School, (2004). SQ3R a Reading/Study System.  Available at

http//:webinstituteforteachers.org/2000/teams/success/sq3r.htm

Lim,P., Cheng.W. , Lam, M., & Ngan, F. (2003). Developing Reflective and Thinking Skills by Means of Semantic Mapping Strategies in Kindergarten Teacher Education. Available at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713714839~db=all

Muskingum College, (2004). Center of Advancement of Learning: Learning Strategies Database: General-Purpose Learning Strategies: Reading Comprehension: Specific Reading Comprehension Strategies. Available at: http://www.muskingum.edu/~cal/database/readingcop.html

Novak, D.  (2004).The Theory underlying Concept Mapping and How to Construct Them.                   Available at: www.cmap.coginest.uwf.edu/info/

Olson, M. & Gee, T. (1991). Content reading instruction in the primary grades:   Perceptions      and strategies. The Reading Teacher45 (4), 298-307.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

O’Malley, M., Chamot, A., Stewner-Mazanares, G., Russo, R. & Kupper, L. (1985).  Learning strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296

Pittelman, S., Levin, K., &. Johnson.D. (1985). “An investigation of two instructional settings in the use of semantic mapping with poor readers. Madison,Wisc” Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.

Palincsar, A. S, & Brown, A. L.(1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote read(ing) with your mind. In T. L. Harris, & E. J. Cooper, (Eds.), Reading, thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New York: The College Board.

Paterno, J. (2000). Secondary Reading Strategies. Available at File://A:\secondary %20%reading %20strategies.htm.

Pearson, D. (1985). Changing the Face of Reading Comprehension instructions. The Reading Teacher, 39 (6), 724-737.

Pearson, P., & Fielding, L.(1991). Comprehension Instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal,and P.D. Pearson (eds) Handbook of Reading Research (11), 819- 860. New York: Longman.

Roberts, M., & Erdos G. (1993). Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational   Psychology, (1)3-4, 259-266.

Robinson, R. , Smith, S. , & Richman, L. (2005)  Special Connections is a Project of National Significance (CFDA #84.325N) funded through the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and coordinated through the University of Kansas.
1999-2005 University of Kansas. Available at

http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/reading_comprehension/teacher_tools/teaching_after_reading_self_questioning_strategies

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, (2), 181-22.

Saft, E. (2003).  Reader-Generated Questions: An Answer for Reading Comprehension Development.  Available at: http://www2.bc.edu/~brisk/primary3.html

Sinatra, R., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Morgan, N.W. (1986).Using Semantic Mapping after Reading to Organize and write Original Discourse. Journal of Reading ,30 ,4-13

Therrien, W., Wickstrom, K., & Kevin, J. (2006). Effect of a combined Repeated and Question Generation Intervention on Reading Achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice ,  21, (2) ,  89-97.

Weiner, C. (1978). Effect of Training in Questioning and Student Question Generation on Reading Achievement. (ED158223).

Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wnden & J, Rubin (Eds).  Language strategies in language, (15-29), Learning. Englewood Cliffis, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wittrock, M. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension.  Elementary school Journal                                              92 (2), 169-180

Wright,J.(2003). Generation Questions: Jim’s Hints. Available at:

http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/rdngcompr/qgen.php

Zaid, M. (1995) .Semantic Mapping In Communicative Language teaching. FORUM, 33 (3), 6-16

Zaghlool, Z. (2004). The Effect of an Instructional Programme Based on Semantic Strategies on the Learning of Lexical Items by Jordanian Secondary Stage Students. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Amman Arab University for Graduate Studies.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on tumblr
Tumblr
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon
Share on digg
Digg
https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.12
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on tumblr
Share on digg
Share on email
Share on reddit
Share on stumbleupon
Share on vk

Dr. Sabah Sabbah, holds Ph.D. in English Language Curriculum and Instruction. She published
papers and books on psycholinguistics, pedagogy, classroom management, and contrastive
analysis. She presented at educational TESOL conferences: Qatar, Dubai, Anaheim, Las Vegas,
Lisbon, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur and Atlanta, Georgia TESOL International 2019.