Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 322325

WCES 2010

The effects of instruction of graphic organizers in terms of students

attitudes towards reading in English
Enisa, Medeaa**
Enisa Mede
a
Yeditepe University, Department of English Language Education, Istanbul, Turkey

Received October 5, 2009; revised December 14, 2009; accepted January 4, 2010

Abstract

One of the fundamental problems many English language teachers face with is enhancing L2 learners reading ability and
maintaining their interest in reading. Most L2 learners have certain difficulties while reading in English since they are not aware
of the effective ways of reading and understanding a text, which might cause resistance and affect their attitudes towards reading
in English. Thus, research emphasizes the importance of instruction on graphic organizers (GOs) to promote reading in a second
(L2) or foreign (FL) language (Fly, Jean & Hunter, 1988; Ellis, 2004; Amin, 2004). The present study investigates the possible
effects of instruction on four concrete graphic organizers (GOs) on students application of those visual displays in a text, and
examines their attitudes towards reading in an EFL classroom. Data coming from pre and post questionnaires, focus group
interviews and think alouds revealed congruence between instruction on graphic organizers and learners attitudes towards
reading in an EFL classroom.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Graphic organizers; reading ability; learners attitudes.

1. Introduction

Graphic organizers (GO) are visual or graphic displays that depict the relationships between facts, terms and
ideas within a learning task (Hall & Strangman, 2002, p. 1). The Center for Independent Learning of the College of
DuPage (1998) describes graphic organizers (GOs) as diagrams or illustrations of written or oral statements.
Graphic organizers include semantic maps, semantic feature analysis, cognitive maps, story maps,
framed outlines, and Venn diagrams (Kim et al., 2004). Hudson et al. (1993) note that positive outcomes for
curricular enhancements require the use of effective teaching practices. A number of studies have revealed that GOs
provide learners with a meaningful framework for relating their existing knowledge base with the text information
(Mayer, 1984; Ausbel 1963; Wittrock, 1992). Without teacher instruction on how to use them, GOs may not be
effective learning tools (Carnes et al. 1987; Clements-Davis & Ley, 1991). They can also successfully improve
learning when there is a substantive instructional context such as explicit instruction incorporating teacher modeling
(Boyle & Weishaar, 1997; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999).

* Enisa Mede. Tel.: +90-216-578-00003168

E-mail address: e_saban@hotmail.com

1877-0428 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.018
 Enisa Mede / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 322325 323

Ellis (2004) provides three reasons why language teachers should use GOs in their classrooms. First, learners are
considerably more likely to understand and remember the content subject since they help them identify what is
important to know about a text. Second, because the semantic processing demands are minimized, teachers can
address the content at more sophisticated or complex levels. Showing how the information is structured might be a
powerful tool to aid in understanding. Third, learners are more likely to become strategic readers as they recognize
the patterns of thinking, constructing and using graphic organizers.
In a number of studies, the effects of instruction on GOs have been investigated considering L2 learners
attitudes towards reading in an EFL classroom. The findings revealed that language teachers should introduce the
GOs to the learners following certain procedures. For instance, Fly, Jean and Hunter (1988) propose several steps
language teachers should follow while introducing GOs to learners like, presenting a graphic outline, modeling how
to construct the same one, providing procedural knowledge, coaching the learners and giving them opportunities to
practice individually providing feedback about the crucial parts of the procedure. In addition, Amin (2004) claims
that using GOs is a powerful and an effective strategy for meaningful learning. They help learners to generate
mental pictures with the information they get from what they read and also create graphic representations for that
information. According to his investigation, different GOs serve different purposes such as, spider map aims to
describe a central idea and problem/solution outline tries to represent a problem, attempted solutions, and results.
Parallel to previous research, the aim of the present study is to find out the possible effects of instruction on four
concrete GOs namely, series of events chart, semantic map, compare/contrast matrix and storyboard on L2 learners
application of those visual aids in a text, to examine their attitudes towards reading in an EFL classroom, and to
investigate whether there are any similarities or differences before and after instruction.
Specifically speaking, the following questions were addressed in this study:
1. Does instruction on graphic organizers (GOs) help L2 learners apply them to their own reading?
2. Does instruction on graphic organizers (GOs) affect L2 learners attitudes towards EFL reading?

2. Methodology

2.1. The Setting and the participants

54 intermediate students (33 females and 21 males) enrolled in a one-year English course (30 hours per week)
offered by a Foreign Language Department at private university in Istanbul, Turkey participated in the present study.
The program included 6 hours of reading and 3 hours of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses every week
during which the participants were exposed to different reading texts and comprehension activities.

2.2. Data collection instruments and analysis

The data for the study were collected through a questionnaire and a focus group interview administered before
and after instruction on four concrete GOs. To start with, a questionnaire was given to the learners before they were
introduced to how to apply GOs while reading to assess their ability to apply those visual displays in a text. There
were 15 items in relation to students reading abilities such as, I can summarize the important events of a text and/or
I can organize the supporting ideas of a text. The reliability estimate was =0.90. After the questionnaire was
administered, a focus group interview was carried out to get in-depth information on L2 learners attitudes towards
reading in English.
The participants also took part in a 4-week training session on GOs. During the first part of the study, a 20-
minute period was set aside weekly for teacher think-alouds in a class. An explicit introduction was made in terms
of the four concrete graphic organizers (GOs): series of events chart, semantic map, compare/contrast matrix and
storyboard followed by various comprehension activities. The following points offered by Markley and Jefferies
(2001) were followed while presenting the GOs: 1) verbalize relationships among concepts expressed by the visual,
2) provide opportunity to student input, 3) connect new information to past learning, 4) make reference to the
upcoming text, and 5) seize opportunities to reinforce decoding and structural analysis.
As for the second part of the study, the training was structured in a way that students worked in groups
and a representative from each group took turns during think-aloud protocols of the representation in relation
to the four GOs.
324 Enisa Mede / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 322325

Finally, the same questionnaire and focus group interview were administered after instruction to compare and
contrast L2 learners application of those visual displays in a text, and examine their attitudes towards reading in an
EFL classroom.

3. Results and Discussion

Descriptive analyses including mean and standard deviation were used to investigate L2 learners attitudes
towards reading. The data from focus group interviews were analyzed by means of pattern coding as suggested by
Bogdan and Biklen (1998).
Considering the results the students experienced certain difficulties in relation to the application of the four
concrete GOs prior instruction. For instance, the participants experienced certain difficulties while the application
of the semantic map (M=2.81, SD=0.873), and compare/contrast matrix (M=2.88, SD= 0.600) in the reading text
indicating that they needed some guidance and instruction. Likewise, there was a weak performance in terms of
using series of events chart (M=3.00, SD=0.707) and storyboard (M=3.66, SD=0.500) which seemed to be the
hardest one to be used effectively by the participants.
However, after the instruction, the frequency of students application of those representations increased. They
showed better performance in series of events charts (M=3.88, SD=0.600), semantic map (4.90, SD=0.943),
compare/contrast matrix (M=5.27, SD=1.103) and storyboard (M=4.90, SD=0.943).
Furthermore, there seemed to be a difference in relation to L2 learners attitudes towards reading in English
before and after instruction on GOs. Before instruction most L2 learners found reading boring and difficult to
understand. They stated they did not like reading because they could not understand what they read easily, as stated
in the following excerpt:
When I start reading a text I get bored quickly, because I cant understand all words and some sentences are
very long. So, I get lost (April, 8, 2009).
The participants also mentioned that they had difficulties in identifying the main point in a text, summarizing the
important ideas in a text, and organizing the supporting ideas of a text as illustrated in the following statement:
I dont know how to find the main point and supporting ideas in a text. Thus, I cant write a summary and
organize my ideas clearly (April, 8, 2009).
Nevertheless, after instruction on GOs, L2 learners attitudes towards reading in English were affected positively.
They argued that they enjoy reading various texts in a lesson because they know how to deal with them as follows:
Now, I really feel like a good reader. I have started having fun while reading and I am eager to read about
different topics (March, 12, 2009).
Finally, the participants claimed to have a better picture of what they read and could remember the important
events/characters more easily as indicated below:
If you ask me about what I read, I can talk about the important points since I can organize the ideas and express
them clearly (March, 12, 2009).

4. Conclusion and Limitations

The results of the present study revealed that instruction of GOs might aid in L2 learners application of those
visual displays in a text, which might also have a positive influence on their attitudes towards reading in English.
However, a number of limitations should be mentioned regarding the present study. First of all, the study examined
only four GOs which might not be enough to make generalizations. Moreover, there could have been an interview
with the instructors to compare their perceptions of the instruction on GOs, to examine the possible effects they
might have on L2 learners application of them in a text, and to investigate their attitudes towards reading in an EFL
classroom.
One of the most important goals of teaching is to help students develop as strategic and independent readers.
Regarding this study, one way of doing it is to explicitly and directly model the graphic organizers (GOs) to the
students and increase their awareness of what they are, when and where they can be used, and how they are used as
well. In conclusion, overt strategy training might have a positive effect application of those visual aids in a text, and
on L2 learners attitudes towards reading in an EFL classroom.
 Enisa Mede / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 322325 325

References

Amin, M. B. A. (2004). Using Graphic Organizers. Institute of Technical Education (ITE). Singapore.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Ally & Bacon: Needham
Heights, MA.
Boyle, J. R., & 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.
Carnes, E. R., Lindbeck, J. S., & Griffin, C. F. (1987). Effects of group size and advance organizers on learning parameters when using
microcomputer tutorials in kinematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 781-789.
Center for Independent Learning, College of DuPage (1998). Graphic Organizers. Retrieved October 9, 2009 from
http://www.cod.edu/Course/GraOrg/Organizers.htm.
Clements-Davis, G. L., & Ley, T. C. (1991). Thematic preorganizers and the reading comprehension of tenth-grade world literature students.
Reading Research & Instruction, 31(1), 43-53.
Ellis, E. (2004). Makes Sense Strategies Overview. Retrieved August 9, 2009 from www.GraphicOrganizers.com.
Fly, J. B. Jean, P. & Hunter, B. (1988). Teaching students to construct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 20-25.
Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning
disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.
Hall, T. & Strangman, N. (2002). Graphic Organizers. National Center on Assessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved August 23, 2009 from
http://www.cas.org/ncac
Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning
disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8 (2), 106-126.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J. & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A
synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37(2), 105-118.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 3042.
Merkley, D.M. & Jefferies, D. (2001). Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 350-357.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and comprehension. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp.
699705). New York: Macmillan.