1. 7th International Conference on Cognitive Science
Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran
May 2017
Vocabulary Learning through Concept Mapping: Conventional Instruction vs. Online Concept Mapping
Dara Tafazoli, University of Cordoba, Spain Elmira Tafazoli, University of Birjand, Iran Elahe Mashayekh Bakhshi, Allameh Mohaddes Nouri University, Iran

2. INTRODUCTION Vocabulary learning Concept mapping
Computerized learning vs traditional methods
Learners’ attitude toward computerized concept mapping

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RQ1: Is there any significant difference in the vocabulary learning between the participants who use conventional instruction and those who use online concept mapping?
RQ2: Is there any significant difference between learners who use conventional instruction and those who use online concept mapping in their long-term retention of vocabulary?

4. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Concept Mapping
‘subsumption theory’
Novak, & Gowin, 1984
Constructivist views of learning
Shuell, 1990
Short-term and Long-term Memory
Gairns and Redman, 1986
Schmitt, 2000

5. LITERATURE REVIEW
Advantages of using concept mapping on reading comprehension Canas, 2004
The effects of incorporating concept mapping on the achievement of fifth grade students Asan, 2007
The effects of image-based concept mapping on the learning outcomes and cognitive processes of mobile learners Yen et al., 2012
Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy Liu, 2016

6. METHODOLOGY Participants: Instrument: 80 students aged from 18-24,
undergraduate students majoring in English
Instrument:
Preliminary English Test (PET).
A teacher-made test for pre-test/ post-test/ delayed post-test.

7. PROCEDURE
Control Group: In conventional instruction group the target vocabularies were taught in six sessions; each time 8 new vocabularies were introduced based on Gairns and Redman’s (2006) suggestion for presenting 8 new items each time. The vocabularies were taught to them through English and Persian definitions and example sentences. They were supposed to make sentences with these vocabularies and deliver them to the teacher in the next session.

8. Experimental group: The participants in the online concept mapping instruction group received vocabularies through an online concept map followed by English and Persian definitions and example sentences. Students were supposed to make these concept maps themselves, and then they had to make sentences with these vocabularies and send them back to the teacher

10. RESULTS: Researc Question 1
Descriptive statistics of conventional and online instructions in post-test N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Post-test, conventional instruction 30
20.28
3.100 15 26
Post-test, online instruction
24.33
2.748 19 29
Valid N (listwise)

11. Independent samples test of conventional and online instructions in post-test
t-test for Equality of Means t Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Post-test
Equal variances assumed
8.564 57
.000
4.050
.723
-7.783
-4.546
Equal variances not assumed
56.213
-7.313

12. RESULTS: Researc Question 2
Descriptive statistics of conventional and online instruction groups in delayed post-test N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Delayed post-test, conventional instruction 30
18.24
2.024 14 22
Delayed post-test, online instruction
22.63
3.146 15 28
Valid N (listwise)

13. Independent samples test of conventional and online instruction groups in delayed post-test
t-test for Equality of Means t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Delayed
post-test
Equal variances assumed
7.213 57
.000
4.390
.587
-5.725
-2.780
Equal variances not assumed
48.867
-5.764
-2.985

14. FINDINGS CALL tools Post and delayed-post tests results
Schmidt (cyclical process of learning)

15. CONCLUSION Active participants Meaningful learning University students
Traditional vocabulary learning and online concept mapping
Teacher and learner cooperation
Implication for textbooks and syllabus designers

16. THANK YOU
Dara, Elmira & Elaheh