ISSN 0853-4403 WAHANA Volume 65, Nomer 2, 1 Desember 2015

THE EFFECT OF MIND MAPPING TECHNIQUES ON THE VOCABULARY MASTERY

OF SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Elizabeth Kusuma
Little Sun School Surabaya
[email protected]

Abstract
Kusuma Elizabeth, 2014. The Effect of Mind Mapping Techniques on the Vocabulary Mastery of Second
Grade Students of Elementary School. A thesis presented to Widya Mandala Catholic University in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master in Teaching English as a Foreign Language.
English Education Department Graduate School Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya 2014.
In this study, the writer used a quasi-experimentalnon-equivalent-groups pre-test-post-test design. The
subjects of this study were the second grade students of Elementary School. The writer used two classes
as the sample of this experiment. The experimental group was taught using mind mapping and another
was taught using word list. Then, the writer gave a pre-test, and post-test to the two groups.
Based on the calculation of the t-test, the writer found the t-observation of both groups. From the analysis
of the pre-test, the writer found out that those two groups had equal ability in vocabulary mastery. From
the post-test scores, the writer also found out that those two groups were not significantly different. The
t-observation of the two groups was 1.26, while the t-table was 2.08. It means that the null hypothesis
which says “there is no significant difference between the vocabulary mastery of the second grade
students who were taught by using mind mapping technique and one of those taught by using word list
technique.” was accepted.
Key words: vocabulary mastery, schemata, mind-mapping, strategy.

Background of the study. which had been recognised as important in terms

In learning English in Elementary school, of its frequency of use of learners’ needs, students
students are expected to memorize lists of words might internationally make efforts to retain it
that are called vocabularies. (Shen, 2003). Traditionally, vocabularies were
Vocabulary is one of the language components taught using word list when words were
that supports the four language skills; listening, highlighted and learned by giving the meaning.
speaking, reading, and writing. Vocabulary is Vocabulary selection was based solely on the
needed to achieve the target language. In order to reading texts used, and words were taught even
communicate well in a foreign language, students though bilingual word-list, dictionary study, and
should acquire an adequate number of words and memorization(Richards, 2001).
should know how to use them accurately (Huyen, Since second grade EFL students in general
2010). Vocabulary plays an important role had difficulty in memorizing vocabulary, effective
because if learners do not have the adequate vocabulary mastery strategies, such as
vocabulary for communication, mastering brainstorming, generating, and organizing words
grammatical rules or pronunciation becomes were needed. EFL teachers should use various
pointless (Brown, 2004). In teaching vocabulary, strategies to teach vocabularies. In brief, mind
teachers should vary the techniques used, as mapping was the techniques where the students
Lopez (1997) states today’s language teacher were given the chance to develop their ideas and
must manipulate much more information in visualize them through images, colour, and word
several different areas of knowledge. drawings. In the English lesson, the children
There were many techniques EFL teachers noticed new words in patterns or images while
could use for making the students interested in they were creating mind mapping (Buzan, 1993).
learning vocabulary. When there was a word “We do not “teach” these words or patterns, we
83
ISSN 0853-4403 WAHANA Volume 65, Nomer 2, 1 Desember 2015

include them in activities and let the children a) E refers to the experimental group who
notice them” (Paul, 2007). was taught using mind mapping.
Through this technique, the students would use b) C refers to the control group who was
their creativity to stimulate their right brain and taught using word list.
c) Y1 refers to the pre-test
left brain. In mind mapping, they were free to use
d) X1 refers to the mind mapping treatment
their minds in different ways and to create things
e) Y2 refers to the post-test
or create words mapping relate to their feelings f) X2 refers to the word list treatment.
and experiences(Hofland, 2007). Creativity was a This design, which was often referred as a
great motivator because it made people interested quasi-experimental design (some content that all
in what they were doing. experiments without random assignment are
quasi-experimental) because it closely
Statement of the Problem approximated the most desirable experimental
Based on the background of study, the writer designs, was commonly used in educational
formulates the problem of the study that is “Is research. It was the same as the non-equivalent-
there any significant difference between the groups post-test-only design, with the addition of
second grade students who are taught using mind a pre-test.
mapping and those who are not with regard to
their vocabulary mastery achievement?” Population
The accessible population of the present study
Research Design was the second grade students of Elementary from
In this study, the writer used a quasi two classes. The researcher did not take the third
experimental nonequivalent groups, pretest-post grade students because the teacher of that level
test design as suggested by Mcmillan (2008). The had her yearly plan herself. The researcher did not
choice of this design was based on the following choose the four, or fifth grade since there was
considerations: (1) the study was conducted in a only one group for the fourth, and fifth.
classroom setting in which the classes could not Moreover, she did not choose the sixth grade
be reorganized to accomodate the investigator’s either since the students in that level were
study and it was not possible to assign subjects to preparing for the National Examinations.
group randomly, and (2) the investigator used two The writer took IIA as the experimental group
existing groups which had been divided and class IIB as the control group. Both of the
previously, that was when the students entered the classes consisted of 22 students. The writer
new level of elementary. conducted this study to second grade of
Gro Pre- Treatm Post-test Elementary School students because the writer
up test ent believed that they had gotten understood some
E Y1 X1 Y2 vocabulary about occupations.
C Y1 X2 Y2
The research design which was used for this Table 2
study can be illustrated in the table below The Population of the Study
(Mcmillan, 2008).
No. Class Number of
Student
Table 1
1. II. A 22
The Research Desig
2. II. B 22

Where:

Treatments

84
ISSN 0853-4403 WAHANA Volume 65, Nomer 2, 1 Desember 2015

Each group got a different treatment. Class the mean of the control group was 18.27. It was
IIA, as the experimental group received the mind shown thatttable was 2.08, while tobserved
mapping technique as the treatment and class IIB, was only 1.70. Since 2.08 was greater than 1.70,
as the control group, got word list as the the null hypothesis was accepted. The pre-test
treatment. The similarities of both groups were mean scores between the two groups were not
that the students were asked to answer the significantly different.
question “what do you want to be when you grow Since both groups were of more or less the
up?” as a pre-activity and then they had to use the same level as proved statistically above, the last
words in context as a post-activity. In addition, calculation was done to the post-test scores of the
both groups were given the same words, same two groups. The post-test scores were analyzed
material, and time limitation during the treatment. statistically using t-test for significance of the
The differences between those groups were the difference between two means for independent
students in the experimental group recognized samples. The summary of the t-test analysis of
“mind mapping” and the roles in the groups. the data of the post-test scores is shown below:
Whereas for the students in the control group, did
not recognize “mind mapping” andno role or Table 4
group applied in the treatment. Below are the The Calculation of the Post-Test Score
treatments done in the experimental and control Mean Varianc tobserve
Groups N d.f (x) SD e d ttable
groups. Experi
22 21 21.95 2.18 4.75
mental 0.38 2.08
Control 22 21 22.23 2.64 6.96
Data Analysis
The finding related to the major research
question was obtained from the analysis by using
t-test. The null hypothesis which says: “There is From the table, it could be seen that the mean
no significant difference between the vocabulary of the experimental group was 21.95, while the
mastery of the second grade students who were control group was 22.23. The tobserved was 0.38,
taught by using mind mapping technique and one while the ttable was 2.08. Since 2.08 was greater
of those taught by using word list technique.”, than 0.38, the null hypothesis was accepted. The
was accepted. The alternative hypothesis was not post-test mean scores between the two groups
confirmed. Mind mapping technique did not were not significantly different.
influence the vocabulary mastery of the second
grade of Elementary School. Findings
The t-test of the pre-test scores of the two The finding related to the research questions
groups is presented in the table below: was obtained from the analysis by using t-test.
The null hypothesis which says: “there is no
Table 3 significant difference between the vocabulary
The Calculation of the Pre-Test Score mastery of the second grade students who were
taught by using mind mapping technique and one
Group Mean Varia tobserve
s N d.f (x)
SD
nce d ttable of those taught by using word list technique.”,
Experi
22 21 16.36 3.75 14.06 was accepted. The mind mapping technique did
mental
Contro
1.70 2.08 not influence the listening achievement of the
22 21 18.27 3.71 13.76
l second grade of Elementary School.

It was clearly indicated in the table that the

mean of the Experimental group was 16.36 while

85
ISSN 0853-4403 WAHANA Volume 65, Nomer 2, 1 Desember 2015

technique effect may seem giving students, the

fun of learning by drawing and colorful pictures
Table 5 and symbols.
The Calculation of the Gain Score
tobs Conclusion
Grou N d.f Mean Varia erve ttabl No
ps (x) SD nce d e te Mind mapping is not suitable for Elementary
Exper Sig School Students. Related to data analysis of the
iment 22 21 5.68 2.86 8.23 nifi
al
1.2 2.0
can research questions saying “Is there any
tly
Contr
6 8
Rej
significant difference between the vocabulary
22 21 4.41 3.82 14.63
ol ect mastery of the second grade students who were
ed.
taught by using mind mapping technique and one
of those taught by using word list technique?”, the
The results of the independent t-test revealed
null hypothesis was accepted. There was no
that there was no significant and meaningful
significant difference in the vocabulary mastery
difference between those who were taught using
between the students taught by using mind
mind-mapping technique and those who were
mapping technique and those taught by word list
taught using wordlist technique. The magnitude of
technique. It seemed that mind mapping technique
t-observed did not outstrip the t-critical value
did not help them improve their vocabulary
(tobserved=1.2534 >tcritical= 2.0796) at the 0.05
mastery in answering the research question
probability value.
References
Discussion
Buzan, T. (1993). The Mind Map Book: How to
The research question of this study says “Is
Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your
there any significant difference between the
Brain's Untapped Potential. London: BBC
vocabulary mastery of the second grade students
Books.
who were taught by using mind mapping
technique and one of those taught by using word Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment
list technique?”. The data analysis proved that Principles and Classroom Practices. New
there was no significant difference in students’ York: Pearson Education.
vocabulary mastery between the students taught
by using mind mapping technique and those Hofland, C. (2007). Mind-Mapping in the English
taught by using word list technique. It showed as a Foreign Language Classroom. Fontys
that Mind Mapping technique did not improve the Teacher Training College Sittard, 1-46.
students’ vocabulary mastery.
Huyen, N. T. (2010). Learning Vocabulary
The findings indicate that mind-mapping
Though Games. Asian EFL Journals .
strategy did not really help to teach vocabularies,
who were chosen as an independent variable on
Lopez, C. L. (1997). The Role of the Teacher in
this topic, to obtain a basic in the process of
Today's Language Classroom. Teacher
acquiring low-frequency words and learn more
Development: Make The Right Moves , 1-17.
words and their meanings compared to the
students who were taught using word list
Mcmillan, J. H. (2008). Educational Research:
techniques. The results of the post-test strongly
Fundamental for the Consumer Fifth Edition.
indicated that mind mapping was not suitable for
United States of America: Pearson Education,
Elementary School students. Furthermore,
Inc.
students who were taught using word list
technique showed more improvement of words in Paul, D. (2007). Teaching English to Children in
vocabulary mastery. While mind-mapping Asia. Hongkong: Pearson Longman Asia ELT.
86
ISSN 0853-4403 WAHANA Volume 65, Nomer 2, 1 Desember 2015

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development

in Language Teaching. USA: Cambridge
University Press.

Shen, W. (2003). Current Trends of Vocabulary

Teaching and Learning Strategies for EFL
Settings. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences , 187-224.

87