Learner- vs. expert-constructed outlines: Testing the associations with L2 text comprehension and multiple intelligences

Main Article Content

Sholeh Moradi
Shima Ghahari
Mohammad Abbas Nejad

Abstract

Cognitive organizers (COs) are text aids which represent objects, concepts, and their relations by the use of symbols and spatial arrangements without adding to semantic content. The present study examines language learners’ text comprehension through outlines, a popular CO, compared with text-only condition, and further investigates the effect of learner-constructed outlines (i.e., systematic note-taking) and expert-constructed outlines (i.e., readymade displays) on comprehension. Finally, the predictive power of multiple intelligences (MI) across different input modalities is scrutinized. Following stratified random sampling, a total of 111 EFL undergraduates were divided into text-only (receiving a text twice), expert-constructed (the text followed by an outline), and learner-constructed (the text followed by an outline to be drawn up by the learner) groups. A TOEFL examination, a 1218-word expository text on systematic sleep disorder, a follow-up reading comprehension test, and a multiple intelligences inventory constituted the data collection measures. The results of multiple regression and ANOVA were as follows: (a) COs lead to more content recall than text displays; (b) expert-constructed and learner-constructed outlines are equally effective; (c) MI significantly predicts the groups’ reading comprehension; (d) interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences are significant correlates of text-only groups’ performance; and (e) visual, verbal, and intrapersonal intelligences are significantly associated with learner-constructed groups’ reading scores. The study offers several implications for theory and practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Sholeh Moradi, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

Sholeh Moradi holds an MA degree in TEFL (teaching English as foreign language) from Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran and teaches English at several schools and colleges. Her major areas of interest are cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.

Contact details: Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Department of Foreign Languages, 7616914111, Kerman, Iran (sholeh.flam@gmail.com)

Shima Ghahari, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

Shima Ghahari is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran, teaching and supervising postgraduate students. Her recent papers have been published in System, Assessing Writing, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Culture and Psychology, RELC, Reading Psychology, Psychological Studies, Pedagogies: An International Journal, Interpreter and Translator Trainer, Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, and other journals. She is also a reviewer and/or editor for many scholarly journals including Learning and Individual Differences, TESOL Journal, Reading and Writing Quarterly, and Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.

Contact details: Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Department of Foreign Languages, 7616914111, Kerman, Iran (ghahary@uk.ac.ir; ghaharii@gmail.com)

Mohammad Abbas Nejad, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

Mohammad Abbas Nejad is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran, teaching and supervising postgraduate students. His major areas of interest are psycholinguistics, morphology, and English for specific purposes.

Contact details: Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Department of Foreign Languages, 7616914111, Kerman, Iran (mabbasnejad2000@yahoo.com)

References

  1. Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations. System, 36(2), 141-155.
  2. Alvermann, D. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. The Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44-48.
  3. Amundsen, C., Weston, C., & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’ analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 633-652.
  4. Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  5. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
  6. Balajthy, E., & Weisberg, R. (1990, December). Effects of reading ability, prior knowledge, topic interest, and locus of control on at-risk college students’ use of graphic organizers and summarizing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Effects-of-Reading-Ability%2C-Prior-Knowledge%2C-Topic-BalajthyWeisberg/385fbfd36ebb8a34aa19541ffb0cbe7fb80f79d0
  7. Basque, J., & Lavoie, M. C. (2006). Collaborative concept mapping in education: Major research trends. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 79-86). San Jose, Costa Rica.
  8. Bas, G., & Beyhan, O. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365-386.
  9. Bean, T., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students’ comprehension in a tenth-grade world history class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153-169.
  10. Botting, N., & Adams, C. (2005). Semantic and inferencing abilities in children with communication disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40(1), 49-66.
  11. Boyle, J., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(4), 228-235.
  12. Brand, S. (2006). Facilitating emergent literacy skills: A literature-based, multiple intelligence approach. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(2), 133-148.
  13. 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, 248-263.
  14. Ciullo, S., & Reutebuch, C. (2013). Computer‐based graphic organizers for students with LD: A systematic review of literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 196-210.
  15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. Crooks, S., White, D., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 369-391.
  17. Davis, Z. (1994). Effects of prereading story mapping on elementary readers’ comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 353-360.
  18. Denig, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences and learning styles: Two complementary dimensions. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 96-111.
  19. Diakidoy, I., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356.
  20. Educational Testing Service (2004). Test and score data summary. 2003-04 test year data: Test of English as a foreign language. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/TOEFL-SUM-0304.pdf
  21. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  22. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  23. Ghahari, S., & Ahmadinejad, S. (2016a). Operationalization of Bachman’s model via a multimodal reading comprehension test: Screening test method facets and testees’ characteristics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 67-76.
  24. Ghahari, S., & Ahmadinejad, S. (2016b). Performance on a triangulated reading test battery: A study of language learners’ individual differences and retrospective perceptions. Psychological Studies, 61(3), 245-258.
  25. Ghahari, S., & Basanjideh, M. (2015). Dynamics of strategies-based language instruction: A study of reading comprehension and problem solving abilities via structural equation modeling. RELC Journal, 46(3), 237-253.
  26. Ghahari, S., & Basanjideh, M. (2017). Psycho-linguistic model of reading strategies awareness in EFL contexts. Reading Psychology, 38(2), 125-153.
  27. Ghahari, S. & Heidarolad, M. (2015). Multiple-choice glosses and incidental vocabulary learning: A case of an EFL context. Reading Matrix 15(1), 262-273.
  28. Ghahari, S., & Sedaghat, M. (2018). Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in formative peer practices: Students’ beliefs. System, 74(3), 9-20.
  29. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
  30. Griffin, C., & Tulbert, B. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students’ comprehension and recall of expository text: A review of the research and implications for practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89.
  31. Griffin, M., & Robinson, D. (2000). Role of mimeticism and spatiality in textual recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(2), 125-149.
  32. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4), 417-433.
  33. Haugwitz, M., Nesbit, J., & Sandmann, A. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536-543.
  34. Jaswal, V., & Markman, E. (2001). Learning proper and common names in inferential vs. ostensive contexts. Child Development, 72, 768-776.
  35. Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 34-55.
  36. Katayama, A., & Robinson, D. (2000). Getting students partially involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119-133.
  37. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities, 29(1), 10-16.
  38. Kinchin, I. (2014). Concept mapping as a learning tool in higher education: A critical analysis of recent reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(1), 39-49.
  39. Krug, D., George, B., Hannon, S., & Glover, J. (1989). The effect of outlines and headings on readers’ recall of text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(2), 111-123.
  40. Kiewra, K. (1985). Providing the instructor’s notes: An effective addition to student note taking. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 33-39.
  41. Kools, M., van de Wiel, M. W., Ruiter, R. A., Crüts, A., & Kok, G. (2006). The effect of graphic organizers on subjective and objective comprehension of a health education text. Health Education & Behavior, 33(6), 760-772.
  42. Kulhavy, R., White, M., Topp, B., Chan, A., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285-291.
  43. Lambiotte, J., & Dansereau, D. (1992). Effects of knowledge maps and prior knowledge on recall of science lecture content. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(3), 189-201.
  44. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
  45. Leyu, Q. (2001). A consideration of learners’ individual differences in classroom language teaching. Memoires of Fukui University of Technology, 31(2), 79-86.
  46. Looi, L., & Mustapha, G. (2010). Enhancing writing ability through multiple-intelligence strategies. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 18, 53-63.
  47. Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Graphic organizers as a reading strategy: Research findings and issues. Creative Education, 3(3), 348-356.
  48. Marefat, H., & Ghahari, S. (2009). (Incorporating) adjunct displays: A step toward facilitation of reading comprehension. Porta Linguarum, 11, 179-188.
  49. Mayer, R. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
  50. McCagg, E., & Dansereau, D. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 317-324.
  51. McCrudden, M., Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehension of causal relationships in expository text. Instructional Science, 37, 65-86.
  52. McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
  53. McMahon, S., Rose, D., & Parks, M. (2004). Multiple intelligences and reading achievement: An examination of the Teele inventory of multiple intelligences. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(1), 41-52.
  54. Nesbit, J., & Adesope, O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-448.
  55. Nicholson-Nelson, K. (1998). Multiple intelligences. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
  56. O’Donnell, A. (1993). Searching for information in knowledge maps and texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 222-239.
  57. Ozdemir, P., Guneysu, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing learning through multiple intelligences. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 74-78.
  58. Paivio, A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory, and cognition: Essays in honor of Allan Paivio (pp. 307-332). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
  59. Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2011). Effects of note-taking training on reading comprehension and recall. Reading Matrix, 11(2), 116-128.
  60. Redford, J., Thiede, K., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262-270.
  61. Rickards, J., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3(2), 136-143.
  62. Robinson, D. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85-105.
  63. Robinson, D., & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
  64. Robinson, D., Katayama, A., & Fan, A. (1996). Evidence for conjoint retention of information encoded from spatial adjunct displays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(3), 221-239.
  65. Robinson, D., & Skinner, C. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally efficient indexing? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 166-180.
  66. Rowland-Bryant, E., Skinner, C., Skinner, A., Saudargas, R., Robinson, D., & Kirk, E. (2009). Investigating the interaction of graphic organizers and seductive details: Can a graphic organizer mitigate the seductive-details effect? Research in the Schools, 16(2), 29-40.
  67. Saricaoglu, A., & Arikan, A. (2009). A study of multiple intelligences, foreign language success, and some selected variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2), 110-122.
  68. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  69. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 72-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  70. Schroeder, N., Nesbit, J., Anguiano, C., & Adesope, O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1-25.
  71. Shaw, S., Nihalani, P., Mayrath, M., & Robinson, D. (2012). Graphic organizers or graphic overviews? Presentation order effects with computer-based text. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60, 807-820.
  72. Stull, A., & Mayer, R. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820.
  73. Suzuki, A., Sato, T., & Awazu, S. (2008). Graphic display of linguistic information in English as a foreign language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 591-616.
  74. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
  75. Tzeng, J. (2010). Designs of concept maps and their impacts on readers’ performance in memory and reasoning while reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 128-147.
  76. Waller, R. (1981). Understanding network diagrams. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226695
  77. van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325-331.
  78. Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
  79. Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, personality types and multiple intelligences online. The Learning Organization, 8(1), 36-43.