The Effects of Semantic Mapping on Vocabulary Memorizing

semantic mapping, (2) students’ attitudes towards the benefits <strong>of</strong> semantic mapping on
vocabulary memorizing, and (3) students’ attitudes towards the feasibility <strong>of</strong> semantic mapping.
<strong>The</strong> clusters <strong>of</strong> the items are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Three Clusters <strong>of</strong> Items in the Questionnaire
Clusters Items
1. Students’ interest in memorizing 1, 2, 18, 20, 21
vocabulary with semantic mapping
2. Students’ attitudes towards the benefits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17
<strong>of</strong> semantic mapping on vocabulary
memorizing
3. Students’ attitudes towards the
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22
feasibility <strong>of</strong> semantic mapping
As Day and Bamford (2004, cited in Nguyen, 2007) explained, “using the students’ first
language also means that the information you receive has more chance <strong>of</strong> being accurate and
complete”. For the sake <strong>of</strong> the study, the questionnaire in a Vietnamese version was given to the
students so that misunderstanding would be avoided. To ensure reliability, the researcher gave
careful explanations about semantic mapping before the students began to answer the prequestionnaire.
Piloting the questionnaire
Before <strong>of</strong>ficially used in the research, the questionnaire was piloted with forty-one students with
the similar background and level <strong>of</strong> English pr<strong>of</strong>iciency to test the reliability <strong>of</strong> the instrument.
<strong>The</strong> reliability <strong>of</strong> the piloted questionnaire was Cronbach’s alpha (α) =0.84. <strong>The</strong> results showed
that the questionnaire on the students’ attitude towards semantic mapping was reliable and could
be used for collecting data for the study.
5.3 Interview on the students’ attitude towards semantic mapping
It was stated above that the questionnaire was used to collect more in-depth information on the
students’ attitudes and interests that could not be directly observable. However, using only the
questionnaire could not help the researcher explore complex data for numerous questions.
<strong>The</strong>refore, an interview was considered for this study. <strong>The</strong> interview was one <strong>of</strong> the most
important data gathering tools in qualitative research. Interview could allow researchers to
investigate phenomena that were not directly observable, such as learners’ self-reported
perceptions or attitudes (Gass & Mackey, 2000). Thanks to the interview, the researcher could
achieve data from particular individuals by face-to-face meeting, which could assist the students
by clarifying the questions or clearly define the students’ responses.
<strong>The</strong> interview was designed to explore the students’ attitudes towards semantic mapping
technique as well as explain more comprehensive understanding <strong>of</strong> the results; therefore, it was
given only to the students in the experimental condition after the treatment. Basing on the
643