Theoretical Literature Is Quite Lengthy.

¶ … theoretical literature is quite lengthy. What could be rewritten to be more succinct?

While the presentation or related theoretical literature is important, touching on the ways that previous scholars have found concept mapping to be effective in a learning environment, it is too detailed for an overview. This is emphasized by the fact that a great deal of interesting information is included that is not necessarily relevant to the classroom. For instance, the authors spend a significant amount of time discussing the relation of concept mapping to the psychological topics of self-regulation and self-efficacy. Since this is an article relating concept mapping to education, these areas needed to be touched on only briefly.

What kinds of information about the studies on the effect of concept mapping on ESL students would be helpful to include in the review of literature? How can these studies be related to the present study?

In this article, the authors state that: "there is some evidence that concept mapping is a useful strategy for ESL...students" (249). The author would have greatly benefited the reader by discussing previous work that describes how this strategy helps ESL students. Readers want to know if concept mapping helps with speaking, understanding, reading, listening, or a combination of the above. The author could have related this information to the present study by expanding the present study to include not only quantitative variables, but also qualitative speculation and understanding.

c. What would be an appropriate research hypothesis for this study?

The author hypothesized that the use of concept mapping improves an ESL student's ability to moderate themselves and achieve understanding in an English classroom.

d. What additional information could be provided to show that the random assignment procedure resulted in groups that were essentially the same on characteristics that would influence the results?

In addition to levels of proficiency, the researcher could have disclosed his random assignment via other variables. For instance, the readers need to know that all the females were not placed in one group and all the high school students in a single group. The readers need to know if the groups were representative of the population in age (or educational level) and sex as well as proficiency level.

e. Was the manipulated variable applied to students individually or in groups?

A group of individuals was selected for the manipulated variable, concept mapping. Individuals, however, created concept maps and completed pre-tests and post-tests.

f. What additional detail could be provided about how the pre and posttest were administered?

Although the authors write that the tests were time intensive, readers want to know how long completing these tests took. In addition, readers want to know what the environment was like for taking the test. Could students have been distracted? Were they allowed to consult with their groups? Could they have cheated? Samples of the discussion questions, perhaps in an appendix, would also have been appropriate.

g. What information could be provided to address the possible and plausible threats to internal validity?

First, the researchers need to be more clear regarding the students' situation in groups and when collaboration was allowed and when it was not. Researchers need to also address the possibility of student's cheating, poor instruction, or poor examples. Were students able to receive instructions in their native languages? Was sheltered instruction used when administering the tests and teaching concept mapping, etc.