Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding EFL Reading with Text-Structure Visual Displays: Idea Maps and Idea Matrices

以文本架構的視覺呈現輔助英文閱讀:比較圖示法與圖表法之成效

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Awareness of text structure has been perceived as crucial for effective text processing and comprehension, especially for EFL readers in academic contexts. This study investigated the instructional effect of two types of text-structure visual display—idea maps and idea matrices—in two phases of implementation. In the first phase, freshman non-English majors in two experimental groups went through respective training on the completion of idea maps and idea matrices in support of textbook reading, while the control group did not have such access. Pretest and posttest measures indicated a significant effect of idea map tasks on a general reading test. For text retention in recall, no effect was found for both groups. Nevertheless, descriptive statistics revealed that both experimental groups retained more higher level ideas and less lower level ideas. For inferences generated in recall, idea matrix completion produced significantly fewer incorrect inferences but more correct inferences, as reflected in the descriptive statistics. In the second phase, a swapping of treatment was done between the two experimental groups. Both groups reported a higher preference for the idea map task with reasons regarding text processing, task demand, and design features. Thus, the higher level of relational processing demanded by the two-dimensional matrix may dilute the benefit of idea localization.

摘要

對以英文為外語的學習者而言,閱讀學術性的文章時能覺知文本架構有助於閱讀理解。此項能力在學術閱讀的重要性自不待言。本研究透過兩個階段的教學,以兩種文本架構的視學呈現-圖示(idea map)與圖表(idea matrix)-來輔助閱讀以了解並比較其成效。在第一個階段,兩組大一學生分成兩個實驗組分別作圖示填空及圖表填空兩種練習來支援閱讀,第三組為對照組。前測與後測則施以閱讀能力測驗及讀後回憶書寫。研究結果顯示圖表練習增進閱讀能力,但是兩種練習對文本記憶並無影響,雖然敘述統計顯示兩組實驗組經過練習後高階的文意記得較多,低階的文意記得較少。同時圖表練習也顯著地減少了錯誤的推論,增加了正確的推論。在第二個階段,經過兩組實驗組互換訓練方式後,問卷顯示兩組均較喜歡圖示練習,圖表練習較不受青睞主要原因為呈現兩個面向的文意需要較費力的連結,因此抵消了將重點聚焦的好處。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., Grossnickle, E. M., & List, A. (2016). Measuring relational reasoning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 119–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chu, H. C. (2015). Illuminating thinking through post-reading online discussion for EFL learners: an exploratory study. English Teaching and Learning, 39,(3), 1–32.

  3. Bernhardt, E. B. (2001). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crooks, S. M., & Cheon, J. (2013). Strategies for note-taking and computer-based graphic organizers. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through Visual Displays (pp. 187–222). IAP Information Age Publishing.

  5. Daise, D., & Norloff, C. (Eds.) (2015). Q: Skills for Success, Level 4: Reading and Writing. (2nd edition). N. Y.: Oxford University Press.

  6. Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). A relational reasoning approach to text-graphic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mindmaps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5, 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Graesser, A. C., Swamer, S. S., Baggett, W. B., & Sell, M. A. (1996). New models of deep comprehension. In B. Britton & A. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 1–32). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jiang, X. (2012). Effects of discourse structure graphic organizers on EFL reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1), 84–105.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, R. E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 9, 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kansizoğlu, H. B. (2017). The effect of graphic organizers on language teaching and learning areas: A meta-analysis study. Education and Science, 42(191), 129–164.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38, 679–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Dubois, N. F., Christenson, M., Kim, S. I., & Risch, N. (1997). Effects of advance organizers and repeated presentations on students' learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2), 147–159

  16. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition (pp. 93-100). Cambridge University Press. Instructional Science, 38, 679–705.

  17. Long, D., Seely, M., Oppy, B., & Golding, J. (1996). The role of inferential processing in reading ability. In B. Britton & A. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 189–214). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.

  18. Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Graphic organizers as reading strategy: Research findings and issues. Creative Education, 3(3), 348–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maxim III, H. (2002). A study into the feasibility and effects of reading extended authentic discourse in the beginning German language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multi-media learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer, R. E. (2013). Foster learning with visual displays. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 47–74). IAP Information Age Publishing.

  22. McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 623–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

  24. Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 599–621.

  25. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.

  26. Robinson, J. S., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effective? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399–415.

  27. Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why do graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computational efficiency? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 166–180.

  28. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Language and Instruction, 13, 141–156.

  29. Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1–23.

  30. Schroeder, N. L., Nesbit, J. C., Anguiano, C. J., & Adesope, O. O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 431–455.

  31. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

  32. Tajeddin, Z., & Tabatabaei, S. (2016). Concept mapping as a reading strategy: Does it scaffold comprehension and recall? The Reading Matrix, 16(1), 194–208.

  33. Tseng, J. (2010). Designs of concept maps and their impacts on readers’ performance in memory and reasoning while reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 128–147.

  34. Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Download references

Funding

The research reported here was supported by MOE through grant 107F015202 under Teaching Practice Research Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Taiwan Normal University, 162 He-ping E. Rd., Sec. 1, Taipei, 10610, Taiwan

    Hsi-chin Chu

Authors
  1. Hsi-chin Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsi-chin Chu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1. A sample idea map

figure a

Appendix 2. Sample idea matrices

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chu, Hc. Scaffolding EFL Reading with Text-Structure Visual Displays: Idea Maps and Idea Matrices. English Teaching & Learning 44, 397–415 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00048-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00048-0

Keywords

關鍵詞

Search

Navigation