Memorization versus Semantic Mapping in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition by Khoii and Sharififar - Article Example

CRITICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE by Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor University City/State Date Critical Research Article Introduction Many researchers have been interested in identifying the best strategy to foster learning or vocabulary acquisition among students in different levels education. This interest has sparked debates on the efficacy of different cognitive strategies in fostering learning. According to Ausbel (2006, 37), learning can occur either through memorizing or recognition. The emphasis on meaningful learning has led to the belief that cognitive approaches should foster deeper learning and ability to interconnect ideas. This method has been acclaimed to be the best since it fosters deeper learning and develops critical thinking abilities. Consequently, cognitive strategies such as rote memorization have been constantly been criticized as a less effective method. This paper analyzes a research conducted to determine whether semantic mapping strategies lead to better learning performance compared to rote memorization. The discussion begins with a look at the research problem and later evaluates the perspectives or approaches that have been used to address the problem. Additionally, it reviews the research findings, evidence, and assumptions. Research Problem Memorization versus semantic mapping in L2 vocabulary acquisition by Khoii and Sharififar is a research article that seeks to investigate the alleged superiority of semantic mapping over rote memorizations. The authors argue that rote memorization has been unfairly judged to be a lesser effective approach to improving vocabulary compared to semantic mapping yet their findings do not seem to support this popular point of view. The authors begin their study by pointing clearly stating out their position on the matter. This approach indirectly informs the reader what the research problem might be. However, immediately after the introduction statement the authors begin to explain how their research finding imply that the popular semantic approach might be an overhyped strategy that lacks sufficient evidence to indicate major differences in effectiveness as compared to rote memorization. The driving force behind this research is the need to factually demonstrate that rote memorization is as good an approach as semantic mapping. The researchers provide evidence that the difference between the two strategies is too minimal to claim one approach is better than the other. Despite the clarity of their goal, the researchers do not provide sufficient information that demonstrates why semantic mapping has been said to be better than rote memorization. They merely point out the other studies have demonstrated the semantic mapping to be a better approach. This lack of clear background on the issue makes it difficult for the reader to comprehend the importance of the research. Its absence fails to place the issue into a larger context and provide reasons why the issue has not been solved. The lack of emphasis on some of the reasons of why rote memorization has been unfairly criticized fails to bring out the issues driving the research. Despite these gaps, the authors have managed to ensure the research problem remains at the center of their work. They have done this ensuring that in each section. The reader is continually reminded of the issue. In addition, their conclusions indicate that the difference between semantic mapping strategies and rote memorization was minimal in relation to improving a learner’s vocabulary. Research Perspective or Approach Khoii and Sharififar take a quantitative approach to achieve their research goals. They focused on gathering data that ensured that they were able to demonstrate that both cognitive strategies deliver similar results and if there are differences, they are minimal to warrant a de-accreditation of one approach. Unlike other studies where authors spend time analyzing various literatures in order to develop a research perspective, the two authors opted to go straight into the issue. This direct approach implies that the authors prefer to conduct an action research rather than rely on past research data to build their perspective on the issue. The choice of data is both concise and targeted. In many studies, researchers fail to correctly sample their participants leading to misconstrued results. In order to avoid this issue, Khoii and Sharififar ensure that they conduct their tests on targeted group. Thompson (2012, p.5) points out that the basic view of sampling assumes that the variable interest being measured within a target population are likely to contain errors therefore, it is critical to take a targeted approach during sampling. The choice of respondents is appears to imply an adaptive sample clustering approach. This approach is normally taken in order to achieve precision or efficiency (Thompson 2012, p. 6). The administration of proficiency tests is an important approach that enabled the researchers to measure the progress of the two cognitive strategies. The method harmonized all measurable factors and ensured that none of the strategies is provided any undue advantage over the other. In addition, the application of the Levene’s test allowed for the researchers to account for the variances and absolute deviations of each category. According to Gibbons (2007, p. 12), the tests also allow for the interpretation of a null hypothesis for variances. Therefore, by administering the test to specific groups of respondents the researchers ensured that the data collected is an accurate representation of the factors. Findings and Conclusions The study demonstrated that contextualized approaches to learning do not significantly improve a learner’s vocabulary. These findings showed that the overemphasis that that semantic mapping is better teaching and learning tool compared to rote memorization was not entirely true. Previous studies have criticized rote memorization for not encouraging deeper learning. Argument against this method has generally been focused on the fact that the approach does not foster critical thinking or analysis habits. Consequently, contextualized approaches have been hailed as the better alternative (Svenconis and Stephen 2013, p. 37). The findings by the Khoii and Sharififar demonstrated that at the end of the day what is important is that the students learn. The insistence building on building critical thinking or deeper learning abilities is not critical at least not at this stage. The results noted that semantic strategies are constrained by several individual factors. This perspective is mostly ignored by researchers who believe that rote memorization is not the best approach. The fact that they highlight these factors illustrated the fact that studies on contextualized approaches have not been sincere in accounting for its perceived efficacy over rote memorization. Findings from past researches only emphasized on the importance of higher levels of involvement (Gewetz 2011, Para.1). They did not measure the differences in outcomes for both approaches rather they focus more on the potential benefits. The authors recognized this gap and used their findings to illustrate that the differences in outcomes is minimal. Thus, semantic strategies should not be considered the better than rote memorization in relation to acquisition of vocabulary by learners. Evidence The statistical analysis of the test results indicated that there was no significant changes in vocabulary mean scores between the two strategies. However, the results noted that the two cognitive strategies did improve the vocabulary knowledge among learners. Since the study sought to determine whether semantic strategies delivered better results, the researchers evaluated the differences in performance and found out that difference between the two cognitive strategies was large enough to warrant the negative criticism against rote memorization. The researchers adopted good statistical analysis tools to ensure that they accounted for variations and distribution factors. The data analysis factored in standard deviations and confidence intervals in order to account for statistical variances. The results from the studies support the researcher’s point that there is more to rote memorization than most scholars believe. However, it is important to note that the data presented does not point out that the semantic methods are not effective. The data only measures the differences in performance and suggests that both approaches are equally good at least in regard to vocabulary acquisition among L2 learners Assumptions There were several assumptions that were made in the course of the study. For instance, the researchers assumed that a simple proficiency test would be adequate to attribute any differences in vocabulary knowledge and treatment conditions. The test was an important tool for measuring knowledge but not the best approach to measure potential differences between the two approaches. Tests only measure performance and cannot be used to account for individual motivations for learning. Consequently, tests cannot be assumed to be an accurate indicator of the intrinsic or extrinsic factors that motivate students to learn new vocabulary In addition, the study assumed that the fact that the students are more familiar with memorization strategies would not affect the results of the study. This oversight may form the basis for challenging the results since it can be argued that the learners were already preconditioned in favor rote memorization. Therefore, when one administered the test it was more likely that the respondents will be inclined to employ the strategies that they are more familiar with as opposed to newer approaches. This oversight by the researchers makes one question whether the study would record different findings if the respondents were equally exposed to the two cognitive strategies. Conclusion This paper has determined that the study conducted on the rote memorization and semantic mapping strategies was informed by the need to establish whether there is a significant change between the two strategies. The research problem emanated from a research gap whereby most studies only focused on the benefits of semantic mapping techniques. From the research, it is clear that both cognitive strategies deliver the same outcomes among L2 learners. The review has also shown that there are individual factors that motivate a student’s learning process. These factors account for the differences in the performance of the two strategies. Also, the researchers ensured that the gathered data from a targeted group. The respondents were carefully selected in order to ensure better precision and accuracy when presenting the findings. They also ensured that they applied the correct statistical tools to account for variances and distribution aspects of the research. Lastly, the authors included assumptions regarding proficiency tests and learning strategies. The assumptions have shaped the results of the study as well as pointed out potential areas of arguments against the results. Reference List Ausubel, DP & Ausubel, DP 2006, The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Gibbons, C 2007, Determination of power and sample size for Levene's test, Masters Abstracts International. 46-04. Thesis (M.S.)--University of Colorado at Boulder, 2007. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:1447667. Gewertz, C 2015, "Is Rote Memorization Necessarily Bad? - Curriculum Matters - Education Week," Education Week - Curriculum Matters. Accessed April 1, 2015. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/02/is_rote_memorization_necessari.html. Svenconis, J & Stephen K 2013, "Investigating the teaching of second-language vocabulary through semantic mapping in a hypertext environment” Calico Journal vol. 12, no. 2 pp 33-57. Thompson, SK 2012, Sampling, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. Read More