To investigate students’ attitudes towards the implementation of semantic mapping, the researcher decided to use the self-questionnaire adapted from Dang and Hoang (2014). Data was analyzed from the questionnaire in terms of eight categories, namely, Interest/Enjoyment, Usefulness, Engagement, Remembering and recalling, Comparison with traditional methods, Creative effectiveness, Suggestion and Others.
4.2.1. Motivation for learners
This section reported the statistics of the interest and enjoyment of students towards the application of semantic mapping on learning vocabulary.
39 Table 4.2.1
Motivation for learners
No Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 1 I look forward
to vocabulary lessons that involve
semantic mapping.
6 8 10 33 43 3.94 1.192
2 I enjoy using semantic mapping to learn
vocabulary.
8 10 13 42 27 3.69 1.223
The analysis reveals that while the majority of students demonstrate a positive attitude towards incorporating semantic mapping into vocabulary learning, there is a notable minority who hold a less enthusiastic stance. Specifically, 23% of students either disagree or strongly disagree that they look forward to semantic mapping-inclusive vocabulary lessons, contrasting with the 77% who express agreement or strong agreement. This subgroup's mean score stands at 3.94, with SD of 1.192. Similarly, 31% of students indicate either a neutral or negative sentiment towards using semantic mapping for vocabulary acquisition, opposing the 69% who express enjoyment or agreement. This subgroup's mean score registers at 3.69, with an SD of 1.223. Despite these, the overall data underscores a prevailing inclination towards embracing semantic mapping as a tool for enhancing vocabulary instruction.
4.2.2. Usefulness
This section reported the statistical data of students’ perspective towards the usefulness of semantic mapping in vocabulary retention.
40 Table 4.2.2
Usefulness of semantic mapping
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 3 I can remember
the collocation of
the new
vocabulary item more easily through semantic mapping.
4 8 13 42 33 3.92 1.088
4 Semantic
mapping is suitable for my level of English
10 15 29 31 15 3.25 1.194
5 Semantic
mapping is useful for improving my spelling of new words.
6 4 21 35 34 3.73 1.125
6 I can use
semantic
mapping to learn synonyms more effectively.
4 4 10 38 44 4.13 1.044
7 I can use
semantic
mapping to learn antonyms more effectively.
6 4 10 40 40 4.02 1.120
8 I find semantic mapping useful to remember the pronunciation of the words
17 31 38 14 0 2.5 .945
Participants' responses to the questions revealed several insights into the perceived effectiveness of semantic mapping for vocabulary learning. For instance, the majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they could remember the collocation of new vocabulary items more easily through semantic mapping (68% strongly agreed, 22% agreed, M = 3.92, SD = 1.088). Additionally, participants generally found semantic mapping suitable for their English proficiency level (49% agreed, 21% strongly agreed, M = 3.25, SD = 1.194)
41
and useful for improving their spelling of new words (57% strongly agreed, 20% agreed, M
= 3.73, SD = 1.125). Furthermore, respondents expressed confidence in using semantic mapping to learn synonyms (68% strongly agreed, 21% agreed, M = 4.13, SD = 1.044) and antonyms (64% strongly agreed, 20% agreed, M = 4.02, SD = 1.120) effectively. However, fewer participants felt that semantic mapping was useful for remembering word pronunciation, with responses being more evenly distributed across the Likert scale (31%
agreed, 31% disagreed, M = 2.5, SD = 0.945). Overall, these findings showed that semantic mapping was perceived positively as a tool for various aspects of vocabulary acquisition, but its effectiveness may vary depending on the specific learning goals and preferences of individuals.
4.2.3. Engagement in learning activity and classroom
This section reported the statistical data of students’ engagement in retaining their vocabulary through semantic mapping.
Table 4.2.3
Engagement in learning activity and classroom
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 9 Semantic
mapping helps me engage
more in
learning vocabulary.
4 4 13 42 37 4.04 1.031
10 The classroom atmosphere is exciting when the teacher uses semantic mapping to teach
vocabulary
2 4 10 52 32 4.06 .885
The analysis of student responses regarding engagement with semantic mapping in vocabulary learning reveals significant positive trends. The majority of students strongly agreed or agreed that semantic mapping helped them engage more in learning vocabulary, with 38% strongly agreeing and 42% agreeing (M = 4.04, SD = 1.031). Similarly, a
42
substantial proportion of students reported an exciting classroom atmosphere when the teacher used semantic mapping to teach vocabulary, with 31% strongly agreeing and 52%
agreeing (M = 4.06, SD = 0.885). These findings showed the effectiveness of semantic mapping in enhancing student engagement and fostering an exciting learning environment.
4.2.4. Remembering and Recalling
This section reported the statistical data of students’ perspective towards using semantic mapping to retain vocabulary.
Table 4.2.4
Remembering and Recalling
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 11 Semantic mapping
helps me recall word meaning easily.
4 10 10 63 13 3.69 .971
12 I can remember vocabulary items immediately during the lesson thanks to semantic mapping.
10 8 15 35 32 3.69 1.291
13 Semantic mapping helps me relate new vocabulary with my prior knowledge.
4 6 6 35 49 4.17 1.078
14 With semantic mapping, I can maintain long attention to what I am learning.
8 6 10 34 42 3.94 1.245
15 Semantic mapping helps me feel more confident when I revise vocabulary.
13 10 29 33 15 3.27 1.216
The analysis of students' perceptions regarding remembering and recalling vocabulary items through semantic mapping reveals consistent trends. Most students (73%) who stated that semantic mapping aided in recalling word meanings either agreed or strongly agreed, with M of 3.69 and SD of 0.971, indicating a generally favorable perception of the effectiveness of semantic mapping in facilitating word meaning recall. Similarly, regarding the immediate recall of vocabulary items during lessons, 66% of students expressed agreement or strong agreement, with M = 3.69 and SD = 1.291, indicating a consistent perception with slightly
43
higher variability. Moreover, a substantial majority (83%) believed that semantic mapping aids in relating new vocabulary with prior knowledge, with M = 4.17 and SD = 1.078, indicating a high level of consensus among respondents. Additionally, in terms of maintaining attention during learning, a considerable proportion (75%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, reflected in M = 3.94 and SD = 1.245, suggesting a generally consistent perception with moderate variability. However, when it comes to feeling more confident during vocabulary revision, opinions were more diverse, with only 28% expressing agreement or strong agreement, and 38% unsure, disagreeing, or strongly disagreeing (34%), M = 3.27, and SD = 1.216, indicating a broader range of perspectives among respondents.
Overall, while students generally perceive semantic mapping positively in facilitating various aspects of remembering and recalling vocabulary, there was some variability in their perceptions, particularly regarding confidence during vocabulary revision.
4.2.5. Comparison with traditional methods
This section reported the statistical data of students’ perspective when comparing semantic mapping and traditional methods.
Table 4.2.5
Comparison with traditional methods
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 16 Semantic mapping
helps me organize words better than the traditional technique.
4 2 4 82 8 3.88 .761
17 Semantic mapping gives me a better visual image than the traditional technique.
2 2 2 56 38 4.25 .786
18 Semantic mapping helps me engage more in learning vocabulary than the traditional
technique.
4 4 10 40 42 4.10 1.036
In comparing semantic mapping with traditional methods, the data reveals noteworthy patterns among students. A substantial majority (89%) of students expressed agreement or strong agreement that semantic mapping helps them organize words better than traditional techniques, with M of 3.88 and SD of 0.761, indicating a widespread perception favoring
44
semantic mapping for word organization. Similarly, the majority of students (94%) agreed or strongly agreed that semantic mapping gives them a better visual image compared to traditional techniques, with M of 4.25 and SD of 0.786, suggesting a prevalent belief in the superiority of semantic mapping for visual representation. Moreover, a significant majority (82%) of students agreed or strongly agreed that semantic mapping helps them engage more in learning vocabulary than traditional techniques, with M of 4.10 and SD of 1.036, indicating widespread agreement on the effectiveness of semantic mapping in enhancing engagement.
However, a small percentage of students expressed uncertainty or disagreement regarding the effectiveness of semantic mapping compared to traditional methods, highlighting some variability in perceptions among respondents. These findings showed students' perceived advantages of semantic mapping over traditional methods in various aspects of vocabulary learning, while also acknowledging the diversity of opinions among students.
4.2.6. Creative effectiveness
This section reported the statistical data of students’ perspective towards the creative effectiveness of semantic mapping to retain their vocabulary.
Table 4.2.6
Creative effectiveness
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 19 Semantic mapping
allows me to express my creativity while learning vocabulary. is a creative technique for vocabulary learning.
2 2 6 42 48 4.31 .854
20 I feel more imaginative when using semantic mapping.I can use my memory and creativity to make a semantic mapping to learn more effectively.
2 2 2 52 42 4.29 .798
In evaluating semantic mapping's impact on creative effectiveness in vocabulary learning, notable trends emerge from student responses. A significant majority of students (90%) either agreed or strongly agreed that semantic mapping allows them to express their creativity while learning vocabulary, with M score of 4.31 and SD of 0.854. This shows a
45
widespread perception among students that semantic mapping fosters creativity in vocabulary acquisition. Similarly, the majority of students (94%) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel more imaginative when using semantic mapping, with M of 4.29 and SD of 0.798, suggesting a prevalent belief that semantic mapping enhances imaginative thinking in vocabulary learning. These findings showed the perceived benefits of semantic mapping as a creative technique for vocabulary acquisition, reflecting students' positive attitudes towards its role in stimulating creativity and imagination during the learning process.
4.2.7. Suggestion
This section reported the statistical data of students’ suggestion towards the application of semantic mapping to retain their vocabulary.
Table 4.2.7 Suggestion
Item Statement Percentage of students Mean SD
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 21 I expect the teacher
to keep using semantic mapping to teach vocabulary in the future.
17 17 10 42 14 3.21 1.352
22 Apart from semantic mapping
techniques, I also want the teacher to use other techniques to teach vocabulary.
0 0 0 4 96 4.98 .144
When considering students' suggestions regarding the future use of semantic mapping in vocabulary teaching, distinct patterns emerge. A notable proportion of students (74%) expressed uncertainty or disagreement regarding the expectation for the teacher to continue using semantic mapping, with a mean (M) score of 3.21 and SD (SD) of 1.352, indicating a varied stance among respondents. This suggests a lack of unanimous consensus among students regarding the continued implementation of semantic mapping in future vocabulary lessons. Conversely, an overwhelming majority of students (100%) indicated a preference for the integration of other techniques alongside semantic mapping for vocabulary instruction, with M of 4.98 and SD of 0.144. This indicates a strong inclination towards diversifying teaching approaches beyond semantic mapping alone. This research highlights
46
the value of using different teaching methods to address the unique ways students learn and what they need to succeed.
4.2.8. Others
An analysis of student responses regarding their experiences with semantic mapping for vocabulary learning reveals a demonstrably positive impact on the learning process. This answers highlights the potential of semantic mapping on vocabulary’s retention.
Firstly, students reported a heightened sense of enjoyment and anticipation associated with vocabulary lessons that incorporate semantic mapping. Furthermore, students valued the creative freedom afforded by semantic mapping. They perceived it as a tool that transcends rote memorization, enabling them to explore new words in an imaginative and personalized manner. For example, one student wrote in this section as following:
I preferred using semantic mapping because I could connect the vocabulary that I already knew with the new ones, so I could remember longer. Moreover, I felt more active in making a semantic map because it required me to think a lot.
However, there were still some students who doubted this method as they considered this method too complex and time-consuming. To illustrate:
Even though semantic mapping was helpful, I found it rather time-consuming. I wanted my learning process to be simple, just look and write. Moreover, finding the connection between the concepts sometimes took too long if I did not have enough background knowledge about that.
Beyond the enjoyment factor, students acknowledged the practical benefits of semantic mapping. They reported enhanced ability to retain word meanings, establish connections between new and existing knowledge, and maintain focus during lessons. For example, one student stated that “Whenever I want to remember a new word, I can also remember another word because of the connection in the semantic map”. On the other hand, some students felt overwhelmed and a sense of fear if they could not keep up with their peers. This demotivated them to create the map and revise it. As one student wrote in their questionnaire stated as following:
I felt scared when I was asked to do a semantic map at classes because I feared that my semantic map was not as good as my friend’s. Even though the teacher told me it was fine, I felt uncertain.
47
Interestingly, students’ answers reveal a favorable comparison of semantic mapping to traditional vocabulary learning methods. They commend the clarity, visual appeal, and fascinating nature of semantic mapping, suggesting it surpasses rote memorization techniques in effectiveness. This underscores the potential of semantic mapping to transform language education by offering a more engaging and demonstrably effective approach to vocabulary acquisition. One student stated as following:
I was always sleepy when learning vocabulary through writing the word then the meaning of the words. I did not think, so it was difficult to memorize the words.
However, learning with semantic mapping made me think about the word a lot. The learning process was active, and I enjoyed it.
Despite the positive opinions, some students said this method was too complicated and they were too lazy to do it.
Another aspect of using semantic mapping in retaining vocabulary, most students stated that they found incorporating pronunciation revision into vocabulary learning through semantic mapping challenging. One notable issue that they brought up was the complexity of phonetic symbols and pronunciation rules. Furthermore, students mentioned that they encountered difficulties in distinguishing subtle phonetic differences between similar sounds or phonemes, particularly if these distinctions were not explicitly addressed in the semantic mapping process. One student wrote, “I did not know the IPA sound, so it was hard for me to mark the sound of the word.” For learning synonyms and antonyms, students stated that applying semantic mapping helped them to visualize the words better.
In summary, students’ answers show the positive impact of semantic mapping on vocabulary learning. It fosters engagement, creativity, and comprehension, surpassing traditional methods while some students express concerns about complexity and time commitment.