A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning
Concept mapping-based language learning (CMLL) has attracted increasing attention from the research community. Many studies have investigated non-technology-based CMLL (NTCMLL) and technology-based CMLL (TCMLL); however, the literature reveals no reviews comparing the two, which is needed because th...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-06-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Educational Research Open |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374024000013 |
| _version_ | 1797300387475095552 |
|---|---|
| author | Fan Su Di Zou |
| author_facet | Fan Su Di Zou |
| author_sort | Fan Su |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Concept mapping-based language learning (CMLL) has attracted increasing attention from the research community. Many studies have investigated non-technology-based CMLL (NTCMLL) and technology-based CMLL (TCMLL); however, the literature reveals no reviews comparing the two, which is needed because this can identify the differentiated applicability of technology-and non-technology-based CM activities for assisting language learning. Accordingly, the present study reviews 26 studies comparing NTCMLL with TCMLL regarding publication nature, theoretical framework, target language, learning outcomes, CM activities, and technologies used for concept mapping. The results show that (a) NTCMLL and TCMLL studies have become popular since 2016; (b) meaningful learning was the most common theoretical support; (c) English was the most commonly investigated language; (d) the most discussed learning outcomes were language acquisition and psychological states; (e) individual concept mapping was frequently used; and (f) ready-made tools were applied more than researchers’ self-developed systems. We also identify the similarities and differences between NTCMLL and TCMLL studies while discussing the important implications for their future design. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T23:05:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c65119267c35434d98607dd1eb0164e8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2666-3740 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T23:05:27Z |
| publishDate | 2024-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Educational Research Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-c65119267c35434d98607dd1eb0164e82024-02-22T04:53:32ZengElsevierInternational Journal of Educational Research Open2666-37402024-06-016100319A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learningFan Su0Di Zou1School of Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, ChinaCentre for English and Additional Languages, Lingnan University, Hong Kong SAR, China; Corresponding author.Concept mapping-based language learning (CMLL) has attracted increasing attention from the research community. Many studies have investigated non-technology-based CMLL (NTCMLL) and technology-based CMLL (TCMLL); however, the literature reveals no reviews comparing the two, which is needed because this can identify the differentiated applicability of technology-and non-technology-based CM activities for assisting language learning. Accordingly, the present study reviews 26 studies comparing NTCMLL with TCMLL regarding publication nature, theoretical framework, target language, learning outcomes, CM activities, and technologies used for concept mapping. The results show that (a) NTCMLL and TCMLL studies have become popular since 2016; (b) meaningful learning was the most common theoretical support; (c) English was the most commonly investigated language; (d) the most discussed learning outcomes were language acquisition and psychological states; (e) individual concept mapping was frequently used; and (f) ready-made tools were applied more than researchers’ self-developed systems. We also identify the similarities and differences between NTCMLL and TCMLL studies while discussing the important implications for their future design.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374024000013Concept mappingTechnology-based concept mappingLanguage learningSystematic review |
| spellingShingle | Fan Su Di Zou A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning International Journal of Educational Research Open Concept mapping Technology-based concept mapping Language learning Systematic review |
| title | A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning |
| title_full | A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning |
| title_fullStr | A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning |
| title_short | A comparative review of technology-assisted and non-technology concept mapping-based language learning |
| title_sort | comparative review of technology assisted and non technology concept mapping based language learning |
| topic | Concept mapping Technology-based concept mapping Language learning Systematic review |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374024000013 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fansu acomparativereviewoftechnologyassistedandnontechnologyconceptmappingbasedlanguagelearning AT dizou acomparativereviewoftechnologyassistedandnontechnologyconceptmappingbasedlanguagelearning AT fansu comparativereviewoftechnologyassistedandnontechnologyconceptmappingbasedlanguagelearning AT dizou comparativereviewoftechnologyassistedandnontechnologyconceptmappingbasedlanguagelearning |