The effects of schema strategy training using digital mind mapping on reading comprehension: A case study of Chinese university students in EFL context

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of computer-assisted language learning in the past decades, how to teach English reading in the new educational landscape created has become a challenge. Abundant literature has contributed to reading strategy instruction worldwide, however, empirical studies on computer-aided schema strategy training for Chinese university students in the EFL context have been relatively uncommon. This research aimed to find out whether there was a significant improvement in Chinese university students’ reading comprehension after schema strategy instruction (SSI) using digital mind mapping (DMM) or not. This research also aimed to demonstrate students’ perceptions regarding the positive and negative influencing factors of SSI using DMM. A mixed case study approach was applied due to its complexity and the small number of participants. The data were collected by using semi-structured group interview and reading comprehension tests. The interview data were analyzed quantitatively by using simple percentage analysis and described qualitatively as well. The reading comprehension test data were analyzed quantitatively by using descriptive statistics and non-parametric statistics. It was found that SSI using DMM effectively promoted participants’ awareness of schema strategy in reading, however, no significant improvement in reading comprehension scores was found. Furthermore, visualization of DMM, cooperation among participants, and personalized schemata were perceived as positive influencing factors while imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty in cooperative work, and problems with DMM use were considered negative influencing factors of SSI using DMM. In conclusion, this study highlights the potential of concentrated strategy intervention with DMM to enhance EFL learners’ reading literacy.

Keywords:

• Schema strategy
• computer-assisted reading
• digital mind mapping

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

It has been academic consensus that schema strategy is essential to improve the effectiveness of English reading comprehension. Schema is regarded as the basis upon which readers will interact with the text being read. Thus, failure to use existing schema may lead to various degrees of incomprehension in English reading. The research investigated the effects of focused schema strategy training on reading comprehension of Chinese university students in South Korea, a typical EFL Context. Digital mind mapping was used as a tool to visualize students’ existing schema before reading. The results showed that the effectiveness of concentrated schema strategy training on reading comprehension depends since there was confirmation from group interview as well as denial from reading comprehension test statistics. We also found that visualization of mind mapping, cooperation among participants, and personalization of schemata were perceived as the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of schema strategy use in reading. In contrast, imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty in cooperative work, and problems with digital mind mapping use were considered factors that prevent schema strategy from working. In short, we did not discover a close connection between schema strategy use and reading comprehension despite our expectations.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Reading has been attached with great importance as an essential skill for English learners. Being able to read in a fast, efficient and effective manner is crucial (Trudell, 2019). Due to its complexity and multifacetedness, difficulty in reading could be the result of a host of interacting factors, among which, strategies have been identified as one of the major factors (Habók, 2015). Reading strategy instruction has been considered one of the most important areas of foreign language (FL) strategy research (Habók et al., 2019).

Studies for strategies can be roughly divided into three categories with marked differences. Firstly, studies of cognitive strategies focus on developing or enhancing particular task-related skills (see, Ali & Razali, 2019; Pinninti, 2016; Semtin & Maniam, 2015; Suyitno, 2017; Wannathong, 2016). Secondly, studies on meta-cognitive strategies concentrate on the management of learning (see, Ahmadian & Pasand, 2017; Baştuğ & Demirtaş, 2016; Kasemsap & Lee, 2015; Meniado, 2016; Teng, 2020). Studies of affective strategies aim at improving students’ emotional well-being (see, Rahman et al., 2021; Ramirez et al., 2019). Though divided, existing literature generally confirmed the significance of strategy instruction on reading comprehension (Chinpakdee & Gu, 2021; Friesen & Haigh, 2018; Suhono, 2019; Yapp et al., 2021).

The consensus of its importance could not conceal the serious disagreement among experts and researchers about how strategies should be taught, which broadly fall into three categories depending on the involvement of authentic context of reading, including detached strategy instruction, embedded strategy instruction, and a combined strategy instruction. Detached strategy instruction “employed a standalone learning strategy curriculum ‘detached’ from the learning of subject matter” (Gu, 2019, p. 7). “Embedded” strategy instruction provides “strategy training within the existing curriculum and subject matter goals” (Gu, 2019, p. 7). A combined strategy instruction suggests a combination of both detached and embedded strategy instruction (Livingston, 1997). It is regarded as the most efficient strategy instruction since it involves providing learners with both the knowledge of strategies and free application of strategy in authentic context. That is the exact reason why the combined strategy instruction was employed in this study.

The significance of strategy instruction in reading is self-evident; however, its actual effect in teaching and learning practice is questionable. (Ali & Razali, 2019) perceived it as one of the reasons leading to ESL and EFL students’ struggle in reading. To be specific, students’ difficulty in reading might be caused by a lack of appropriate strategy instruction and/or insufficient strategy practice in EFL context. A common phenomenon is that EFL students were often unable to use possessed strategies effectively (Endley, 2016). (Nasab & Ghafournia, 2016) asserted that continuous practice is needed for students to better understand the reading strategies. Worse still, teachers in EFL context tend to focus more on the conveyance of knowledge while neglecting reading strategy training consciously or unconsciously in teaching practice (Xue, 2019). The common ignorance of efficient reading strategy instruction and the pressing need of strategy instruction in EFL context is exactly the reason why this study came into being.

1.2. Purpose and significance of the study

For Chinese learners, reading comprehension has been a major challenge (Zhang & Seepho, 2013). The reason behind might be that Chinese university students lack proper strategies to manage their own reading effectively and are uncertain of what strategies are and how to use them (Wen, 2003). What is more, there are few studies on English reading strategy instruction for Chinese learners in EFL context while such studies have been increased in other parts of the world (Zhang, 2010). (Li et al., 2022) confirmed that “little is known about the effects of English reading strategy instruction with a homogenous group of students studying in the mainland Chinese EFL learning context” (p. 1). Even less is known about the effects of reading strategy instruction for Chinese students in other EFL learning context rather than mainland China. The existing gap between the critical requirement for English reading strategy instruction for Chinese learners and its prevalent negligence in EFL context should be addressed.

Among various strategies, schema strategy has an important application value in English reading teaching, which was first proposed in 1781 by the German philosopher and psychologist Kant. He defined schema as innate structures which organize our world. After centuries of conceptual revolution, modern schema theory redefines schema as “a kind of cognitive structure for understanding information materials” (Ma, 2021, p. 2). No matter how schema is defined, there is one thing for sure that it is essential for improving the effectiveness of English reading teaching, developing students’ English reading ability, and cultivating students’ good English reading thinking (Wenying, 2022). Failure to use schema strategy may lead to various degrees of incomprehension in reading.

It should be noted that limited research has been done on schema strategy instruction in isolation to reading comprehension (Mills, 2019). Furthermore, studies on computer-assisted reading strategy instruction have yielded positive results (Bippert, 2019; Lee & Chang, 2017; Patel et al., 2018). However, empirical studies that focused on schema strategy training with computer assistance have been relatively uncommon in EFL reading instruction. In consideration of the existing consensus regarding the significance of schema for reading comprehension, then, the bigger problem lies in how to activate students’ existing schemata effectively with the advancement of technology.

In order to bridge the existing gap between the significance of schema strategy and the prevalent absence of SSI in reading for Chinese EFL learners as well as to expand research on schema in isolation to reading comprehension with computer assistance, this study came into being. This study was carried out to investigate the efficacy of targeted schema strategy training using DMM on Chinese university students’ reading comprehension in South Korean, a typical EFL context. This training program was designed to help students overcome general limitations of reading instruction in EFL context including de-emphasis of specific strategy training and lack of guided practice with computer assistance. This study is expected to lay a sound basis for further empirical studies of computer-based reading strategy instruction in EFL context.

2. Literature review

2.1. Theoretical framework

2.1.1. Schema and schema strategy

In the past decades, reading research has undergone great changes with the increasing development of modern technology. Specifically, there were three major changes including the changing nature of reading text, the evolving role of readers, and the diversified perceptions of the reading process (Alexander & Fox, 2004). First, reading text is not linearly confined to printed materials but extends to the nonlinear, interactive, dynamic, and visually complex materials conveyed via audiovisual media. Second, readers are not “passive receptacles of information” anymore, but “active and willful participants in the construction of knowledge” (Alexander & Fox, 2004, p. 52). Third, the perception of the reading process has been changed from a top-down model or a bottom-up model to an interactive model which is somewhat a combination of two models in that both processes take place simultaneously depending on the difficulty of the material for the individual reader (Rubin, 1997). The interactive model has recently been studied under the rubric of schema theory.

Since the concept of schema was first proposed, it has been defined in various ways by different scholars. British psychologist (Bartlett, 1932) described schema as “a positive development model” which can be used in language comprehension. (Adams & Collins, 1977) defined it as “a description of a particular class of concepts and is composed of a hierarchy of schemata embedded within schemata” (p. 7). (Stockwell, 2002) regarded schema as essentially bundles of knowledge stored in memory. (O’Donnell & Wood, 2004) referred to it as a network of related concepts with each schema representing knowledge of a concept along with associations. (Liu, 2015) conceptualized schema as the abstract knowledge structure the reader brings to the text. Though defined diversely, the abstract nature of schema is universally acknowledged. For this study, the definition suggested by (Armadana, 2019) was adopted and schema refers to the students’ prior knowledge about their experience on their mind related to reading text.

Based on schema theory, reading comprehension is an interactive process between the information encoded in the text and the reader’s prior background knowledge. That means a reading text does not in itself carry meaning but provides directions for readers to construct meaning from their own, previously acquired schema. Readers will have to make expectations about the text and construct meaning from the texts by combining their existing knowledge, the information derived from the texts, and the contexts of the reading situations, which contribute to text comprehension and interpretation (Bensalah & Guerroudj, 2020; Hashemi et al., 2016). In other words, the schemata make an intimate relation between previous knowledge obtained in experiences and the information received from the text (Wagoner, 2017). According to (Mills, 2019), students are unable to make inferences without schema building. Thus, how to help students activate and expand existing schemata should be taught.

3. The mind mapping

The tool adopted in this study was DMM to provide “sensorial lessons rich in language to help build schema” and “to provide rich learning experiences” (Mills, 2019, p. 4). The concept of“Mind maps” was first introduced by British psychologist Tony Buzan in the late Sixties. (Buzan & Buzan, 1996) defined it as a visual demonstration of the associative network of images and words, which “harnesses the full range of cortical skills: word, image, number, logic, rhythm, color and spatial awareness in a single, uniquely powerful technique” (p. 81). (Beatty, 2003) considered it as “visual representations of schemata” in “a series of branching lines radiating from a central circle containing the main idea” (p. 93). (Murley, 2007) conceptualized it as “a nonlinear visual outline of the complex information that can aid creativity, organization, productivity, and memory” (p. 175). (Davies, 2011) referred to it as a visual display of information, concepts, and relations between ideas. (Lardjane & Nuutinen, 2014) defined it as “a visual mental tool reflecting the natural organization of the brain” (p. 5). Although there have been diversified definitions, the key characteristics of mind maps are generally accepted as multifaceted, colorful, words combined with pictures, associated logic, multidimensional, imaginative and analytical (Buzan, 2018).

Correspondingly, the advantages of using mind maps are evident. To be specific, firstly, mind maps help users to integrate new perspectives into their existing knowledge with assimilation and accommodation (Umami, 2016). Secondly, mind maps augment the brain’s ability to understand and process information with a visual representation of thought to foster the association of ideas rather than isolated knowledge, which enables the organization and clarity of thoughts (Al-Jarf, 2011; Long & Carlson, 2011). Thirdly, it also promotes whole-brain learning and allows for greater retention of information since diagrams are more easily stored in memory than other representational devices (Davies, 2011; Fiktorius, 2013). Besides, the use of mind mapping also increases students-centeredness (Adodo, 2013), creativity (Kadagidze, 2016), and individuality (Astriani et al., 2020; Nitchot et al., 2019).

With the widespread popularity of mind mapping, its shortcomings are also emerging. On the one hand, there are explicit issues that concerned with usage of mind mapping. For example, (Budd, 2004) states that it might be a bit odd for learners to make even one very simple mind-map when first used since it is not widely used in schools. (Kadagidze, 2016) further illustrated that it would be awkward for some students who are not good at drawing and coloring when making a mind-map. (Tatipang et al., 2021) believed that the only disadvantage of mind mapping use would be the possibility that creative students will make teachers too tired to check the mind maps made by them. On the other hand, there are implicit issues that concerned with the inherent limitation of mind mapping. For example, (Eppler, 2006) demonstrated that the representation of mind maps is mostly hierarchic relationships which might lead to inconsistency, overly complexity, and finally the loss of “the big picture” (Davies, 2011) explained that the types of links being made using mind mapping might be limited to simple association and it is also limited in dealing with more complex relationships.

In general, the defect of mind mapping is not only caused by the possible challenge in its use, but also caused by the restricted learning opportunities provided. To maximize the advantages and at the same time minimize the disadvantages of mind mapping, no drawing and coloring as well as complexity of mind maps is required for students in this study. Students would be free to decide what kind of mind map to make as long as it can present all their existing schemata.

4. Practical framework

4.1. Schema and schema strategy

Rich literature has confirmed that schemata play a pivotal role in reading comprehension. (Cho & Ma, 2020) proved that schema strategy instruction significantly increased learners’ reading performance both in short-term and long-term effects. (Bensalah & Guerroudj, 2020) verified correlation between schema activation and the increase of reading comprehension ability. (Hamid et al., 2020) confirmed specifically the impact of grammatical schemata in the EFL students’ comprehension. (Al Asmari & Javid, 2018) reinforced that schema use of Saudi EFL learners help them significantly in reading faster with better understanding.

Overall, the positive effect of schema strategy to reading comprehension has been proved by numerous studies. In other words, lack of sufficient schemata may lead to various degrees of incomprehension (Siddiek & Alfaki, 2013). Thus, helping students to activate existing schema before reading is essential for successful reading. However, schema activation is often forgotten or ignored by the teachers when they teach reading (Yin, 1985). According to (An, 2013), there is neither enough time to assess student schema nor enough hands-on experience to help build schema at school. Thus, the significance of schema activation before reading is reemphasized in this study. Since “The most appropriate time to activate or build the students’ schemata is in pre-reading activity” (Maslakhatin, 2015), the practice of schemata activation was designed before reading with the help of DMM in the study.

5. The mind mapping

Mind mapping was first applied to foreign language teaching in the 90s and have been continuously used in English reading teaching ever since. Abundant research has been done to demonstrate the influence of mind mapping to students’ reading comprehension (Cahyani, 2015; Kusmaningrum, 2016; Male & Tias, 2019; Mohaidat, 2018; Sabbah, 2015). For example, (Buran & Filyukov, 2015) asserted that mind maps help students solve problems, brainstorm creative ideas, remember new vocabulary, take notes, and enhance their reading skills. (Malekzadeh & Bayat, 2015) proved that the use of the mind maps was very efficient in improving students’ English reading comprehension. Similarly, (Tatipang et al., 2021) concluded that the application of mind mapping technique could increase students’ reading comprehension.

Compared with studies that confirm the positive effect of mind mapping, studies on its negative effect are relatively rare. (Maslakhatin, 2015) revealed that no significant difference in overall reading comprehension, literal comprehension, evaluation, and appreciation level between the students who received mind mapping and those who did not. However, he also stressed that there was a significant difference between the treatment group and the control group in their inferential comprehension.

While studies on negative effects of mind mapping on students’ reading comprehension are not common, studies revealing its passive influences on students and teachers have been popular. For example, (Kadagidze, 2016) illustrated that it might be time consuming for some students who are not familiar with mind mapping use and also it might be awkward for part of the students who are not good at drawing since it involves drawing and coloring. He further explained that issue concerned with time consumption can be solved by regular practice since this is just a minor problem caused by in-proficiency in early stage of use. Comparatively, the embarrassment caused by drawing and coloring would be more critical, which can be effectively avoided by empowering students to make their own choices whether to use drawing and coloring or not without restriction. The negative influence of mind mapping use on teachers concerned with the possibility of workload increase caused by creative students (Tatipang et al., 2021). In this study, measures including constant practice, no requirement for drawing and coloring, and small class size effectively deal with the negative influences of mind mapping use mentioned above.

In this study, digital mind map was used as a metacognitive tool for students to build possible connections between the text and their acquired schemata in a meaningful way by creating a visual demonstration with hierarchy, colors, and images using computer. It was also used to enhance both individual and collaborative learning (Zahedi & Heaton, 2016). The digital mind mapping tool used to was Coggle Mind Mapping (CMM) from https://coggle.it/. It is adopted as a collaborative freeware mind-mapping tool that allows real-time brainstorming, unlimited image and link upload, downloads, exports, comments and chats (Arulchelvan et al., 2019).

6. Research questions

The purpose of this case study was to describe the effectiveness of schema strategy training on reading comprehension using DMM for Chinese University students in South Korea. Besides, the analysis of test scores as well as participants interview revealed possible contradictions regarding its effectiveness, positive and negative influencing factors. The findings made it possible to better understand how these contradictions can affect the ultimate outcome of computer-assisted SSI in reading. The research questions were as follows:

RQ 1. Does schema strategy instruction using CMM make a significant difference in students’ reading comprehension?

RQ 2. What are the positive influencing factors of schema strategy instruction using CMM?

RQ 3. What are the negative influencing factors of schema strategy instruction using CMM?

7. Materials and methods

7.1. Setting and participants

This study was conducted at a mid-range, moderately sized university in central South Korea as a personal training program. Twelve Chinese students participated in this study voluntarily for a period of five months. They came from different majors, including 4 from the Assets Management, 4 from the Hotel and Tourism, 2 from the International Commerce, 1 from TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), and 1 from the Korean department. The gender ratio was unbalanced with ten female students and two male students. Their ages varied ranging from 19 to 28. Due to the volunteering nature of this program, the imbalance in major, gender, and age was beyond the control of the researcher. More importantly, these factors of imbalance would not affect the experimental results since the only variable affecting reading comprehension in this study would be schema strategy training using DMM.

8. Training procedures

This training program included a one-month preparation with pre-test and training with CMM before the study, a three-month treatment with schema strategy instruction using CMM followed by reading and comprehension test during the study, and a one-month ending with post-test and follow-up group interview. The procedure adopted is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. The procedures of schema strategy training using CMM

Procedures	Tasks
Preparation (Before the study)	Pre-test
	Training with CMM
Treatment (During the study)	Schema strategy using CMM before reading
	Reading
	Comprehension Test
Ending (After the study)	Post-test
	Group Interview

The model adopted was presented in Figure 1. Firstly, students brainstorm their existing schemata about the given topic as in schema activation and then produce their own mind map individually. Secondly, students share their mind maps with a partner as in schema assimilation by which their existing schemata would be exchanged and expanded. Thirdly, students join in group discussions to build a possible connection between acquired schemata and the reading with teacher guidance as in schema accommodation. Through the process of schema activation, assimilation, and accommodation, participants’ existing schemata are expected to be consolidated and internalized and at the same time a possible connection between the acquired schemata and reading established. Fourthly, students read the text individually aided by the gained schemata and established connections in the given time. Fifthly, students finish the follow-up comprehension test on their own within the time limit.

Figure 1. The Schema Strategy Training Model

9. Materials

Altogether, 12 reading passages were selected based on three standards suggested by (Pang et al., 2003), including authentic texts, familiar topics, and appropriate difficulty levels. Reading materials with authentic content and familiar topics were chosen. After that, readability formulas, to be specific, the BNC/COCA word frequency was used to check difficulty levels of the chosen materials by using VocabProfilers from http://www.lextutor.ca/.

The readability of the reading materials used in this study was presented in Table 2. It is represented by the sum of the percentage of the first one thousand words (K1) and the second one thousand words (K2) based on BNC-COCA words frequency levels suggested by Paul (Nation, 2012). The higher the sum percentage of K1 and K2 words in a passage is, the easier it is for students to understand, and thus the readability is higher. The readability of 7 chosen passages is more than 90% to ensure possible comprehension while the readability of the other 5 passages is more than 85% and less than 90% to maintain an appropriate amount of challenge.

Table 2. The Readability of Chosen Reading Passages

Reading passages	K 1(%)	K 2(%)	Sum (%)
Pre & post reading	79.07	8.64	87.71
Reading 1	84.25	9.50	93.75
Reading 2	74.69	12.16	86.85
Reading 3	78.02	15.31	93.33
Reading 4	75.00	12.24	87.24
Reading 5	85.34	4.56	89.90
Reading 6	87.86	5.94	93.80
Reading 7	78.10	12.97	91.07
Reading 8	84.08	7.96	92.04
Reading 9	88.07	8.55	96.62
Reading 10	78.16	10.62	88.78
Reading 11	91.45	1.86	93.31

The reading comprehension tests were made by the researchers based on the major principles of language assessment, including practicality, reliability, validity and authenticity, as suggested by (Abeywickrama & Brown, 2010). The first part of the reading comprehension test was ten multiple choice questions, which were scored as correct or not, with a possible maximum total of ten. The second part of the reading comprehension test was cloze tests comprised by sentences where a single word has been deleted with a choice of usually three to five options. Students were asked to choose the right word from the given options to fill in the blanks. The exact word scoring method was used. Only if the participants insert the exact word that was originally deleted, they can be scored with a possible maximum total of five.

Multiple-choice questions and cloze tests were used since they are objective tests that have predetermined fixed answers. Thus the test reliability was ensured. Furthermore, with the easy and consistent process of scoring and grading of these tests, the practicality was also guaranteed. To improve authenticity and validity of the comprehension tests, one of the language testing experts from TESOL department of the university was invited to review the reading comprehension tests. Adjustments were made accordingly based on the expert’s advice. Summative assessment of multiple-choice questions and close tests used in the study provided a comprehensive measure of students’ reading proficiency, not just in a sentence level but also beyond.

10. Data collection

To address a complex issue such as schema strategy training using DMM calls for a description of multiple dimensions to display them in all their complexity. Thus, this study is inherently qualitative with the focus and setting related and naturally served for a comprehensive search. Specifically, a case study is adopted to produce intensive and detailed descriptions of the implementation process and the meaning participants have constructed during the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected with more emphasis on the interpretation of qualitative data while quantitative data were used as a supplement to make a balance between word description and statistical measurement and also to adjust the depth and breadth of data for the study.

The group interview was the primary source of data to demonstrate both commonalities and individual variations among the participants. A semi-structured interview in Chinese was adopted since it combines flexibility with directionality to produce focused qualitative data and to build rapport between the interviewer and the interviewees while minimizing the impact of the interviewer. The interview questions were presented in Appendix. The audio recording was done with permission and anonymity of the participants was guaranteed.

The reading comprehension tests were the supplementary source of data. To test the effectiveness of schema strategy using CMM quantitatively, scores from reading comprehension tests before and after the study were calculated. The range of possible scores for students’ reading comprehension test was 0 to a full score of 100. The formula used is as follows:

$Student{s}^{\prime }Score=\frac{No.ofCorrectAnswers}{No.ofQuestions}\times 100$

11. Data analysis

The analysis of qualitative interview data was done in four steps as suggested by (Richards, 2003). First, a general sense of what had happened during the SSI took shape. Second, apparent features of participants’ perspectives were identified. Third, the most salient features became the focus subjected to an open coding procedure and then developed into category codes. The category code resulting from the initial open coding procedure was then condensed into larger, more comprehensive code from which the proposition was ultimately derived. Finally, these coded features were translated and transcribed.

For quantitative analysis, reading comprehension results from the pretest and the post-test were compared to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in participants’ reading comprehension using descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation (SD) and non-parametric statistics. The non-parametric statistics were used because the participants in this study were not randomly chosen, and the sample size was relatively small, just 12 in total. Since the normality and homogeneity conditions needed for parametric tests were not met, thus, non-parametric analysis was an appropriate choice (Turner, 2014). The tool for non-parametric statistics used in this study was the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Statistic by using SPSS 22.0. The research is exploratory, so the researcher decided to set alpha at .05.

12. Results

Despite the individual diversity, the participants displayed a relatively consistent pattern as a whole regarding the effectiveness, positive influencing factors, and negative influencing factors of schema strategy instruction using CMM.

The effectiveness of schema strategy training using CMM for Chinese university students was examined using a combination of quantitative data (table 3 & 4) and qualitative (Table 5).

Table 3. The reading comprehension test scores

Name	Pre	Post
Zhaoyu	87	93
Yunjiao	80	87
Maomao	47	60
Xiaojing	87	80
Huangxue	53	67
Mengting	67	67
Pengcheng	60	80
Liying	47	60
Sihang	67	73
Taoli	80	60
Gaonan	53	73
Guoyang	47	53

* All these names used here are pseudonyms.

Table 4. The descriptive statistics

Test	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Pre	12	64.58	15.69	47	87
Post	12	71.08	12.17	53	93

Table 5. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks

Test	Rank	N	Mean Rank		Sum of Ranks
Post- Pre	Negative Ranks	2^a	7.25		14.50
	Positive Ranks	9^b	5.72		51.50
	Ties	1^c
	Total	12
a. Post < Pre
b. Post > Pre
c. Post = Pre
Test Statistics^a
				Post-Pre
Z				−1.65^b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)				.1
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks

The original scores of the pretest and post-test were presented in Table 3. The descriptive statistics were presented in Table 4. The means of pretest and post-test were 64.58 and 71.08 respectively with a 6.5 improvement in their mean score after the study. The standard deviation was 15.69 in the pre-test and 12.17 in the post-test with a 3.52 decrease after the training.

The results from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Statistic were presented in Table 5. After the training, nine participants improved their scores as shown in the positive ranks while the other three participants did not as shown in the negative ranks and ties. The significance for the group was .1, which was much higher than the alpha (.05). So the null hypothesis was accepted. There was no statistically significant difference between participants’ reading comprehension before and after the study.

Quantitative data negates the effectiveness of schema strategy training using CMM. However, the follow-up group interview demonstrated a certain degree of contradiction (see, Table 6). 58% (7) of the participants confirmed its effectiveness, while 42% (5) regarded it as ineffective .

Table 6. The Perceived Effectiveness

	Marked		Unmarked
The effectiveness	7	58%	5	42%

The second research question was concerned with the positive influencing factors of schema strategy training using CMM (see, Table 7). The listed factors were generated into three categories: visualization of CMM, cooperation among participants, and personalization of schemata. 75% (9) of participants confirmed a preference for the visual presentation of their existing schemata using CMM. 83% (10) of participants believed that personalized schemata were quite meaningful for them to build learning of their own. 100% (12) of participants regarded cooperation among participants in the form of pair sharing and group discussion as enjoyable.

Table 7. The Perceived Positive Influencing Factors

Positive Influencing Factors	Marked		Unmarked
Visualization of CMM	9	75%	3	25%
Personalization of schemata	10	83%	2	17%
Cooperation among participants	12	100%	–	–

Regarding the negative influencing factors of schema strategy training using CMM, the listed factors include imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty in cooperative work, and problems with CMM use (see, Table 8). 33% (4) of the participants pointed out that the time arranged for individual, pair, and group work was not balanced. 42% (5) of the participants regarded cooperative work as difficult. 25% (3) of them had problems working with CMM.

Table 8. The Perceived Negative Influencing Factors

Negative Influencing Factors	Marked		Unmarked
Imbalanced time arrangement	4	33%	8	67%
Difficulty in cooperative work	5	42%	7	58%
Problems with CMM	3	25%	9	75%

13. Discussion

RQ 1. The Effectiveness of Schema Strategy Instruction Using CMM for Chinese University Students

When participants were asked to give further explanations regarding the effectiveness of this study, the majority of the participants give a positive answer(see, Table 6). It appeared that those who improved in post-test scores generally regarded it as efficient while those who did not improve or those whose improvement was not as much as expected in post-test scores tended to view it as ineffective. The similarity exhibited was that test scores are used as the major standard for evaluation. Just as Miss Meng (pretest 67, post-test 67) expressed:

Score improvement is the main reason why I am not sure about the effectiveness of this training. We have been doing it for so long. If our scores are not improved, of course, it is not working.

This sole dependence on product-based measurement for reading comprehension is a common practice since reading comprehension cannot be observed directly (Pearson, 2009). Obviously, not every participant improved their post-test scores, some of them even backslid. It is exactly the reason why the efficiency of SSI using CMM was questioned. For example, Miss Tao had a hard time accepting the fact that her post-test score (60) was much lower than her pretest score (80) after the training. She described her great disappointment in the following way:

I could accept it if my score did not improve. It would be fine. But what I could not understand is why my score not only did not improve but also declined so much after all those hours of study.

While some students questioned the validity of the study because their scores were not improved, those who confirmed the efficiency of SSI using CMM especially mentioned its changes to their understanding of schema strategy and the importance of CMM in the concretization of schema strategy use in reading. Just as Mr. Peng explained:

I believe this study is effective because it makes schema strategy more specific rather than an abstract concept. The mind mapping tool we used plays a very important role to make the organization and presentation of our schemata direct and concrete. Now I know how to use this strategy much better and I just need more practice.

Based on the qualitative data, the majority participants affirmed that the effectiveness of SSI using CMM in the sense that it does help to improve their awareness of schema strategy use in reading. According to (Sheikh et al., 2019), meta-cognitive awareness of reading strategies is one of the major influencing factors on reading comprehension. Thus, raising learners’ awareness of schema strategy and improving their proficiency with its use in reading would be the first step toward successful reading.

The effect of schema strategy training on reading comprehension is confirmed by the qualitative data. However, the quantitative data (see, Table 5) show different results and it demonstrates that SSI using CMM did not improve participants’ reading comprehension test scores significantly. SSI could not guarantee the improvement of reading comprehension test scores. It runs counter to conclusion of mainstream research which generally confirmed the efficiency of schema strategy on reading comprehension (Al Asmari & Javid, 2018; Bensalah & Guerroudj, 2020; Cho & Ma, 2020; Hamid et al., 2020; Tavakoli & Koosha, 2016).

In short, regarding the effectiveness of this study, it was found that schema strategy training using DMM effectively promoted participants’ meta-cognitive awareness of schema strategy use, even though it did not improve their reading comprehension scores significantly.

RQ 2. The Positive Influencing Factors of Schema Strategy Instruction Using CMM for Chinese University Students

When the participants were asked to give further explanations for positive influencing factors of SSI using CMM, they expressed different preferences (see, Table 7), including visualization of CMM, cooperation among participants, and personalized schemata.

Miss Yun expressed keen interest in the visualization of her schemata:

I have to say that CMM helped me a lot by visually presenting my brainstorming and editing process for existing background knowledge. One word might lead to the other and another word naturally. All the categories, subcategories, and colors, show me how they are related to each other, rather than isolated words. This visual demonstration helped.

Miss Xiao explained how she felt about it as a personalized learning experience:

In my impression, reading is always about words, grammar points, and translation. The teacher’s explanation will dominate the class while the students are passive listeners. This study is my first time to use CMM and also my first time to read with the actual use of schema strategy. It is fun to play with the mind mapping using my schemata. You can see everyone’s mind mapping would be unique. It makes the reading more personalized and thus more interesting.

Miss Zhao explained her likes for the cooperative work by comparing it with her past learning experience:

Frankly speaking, I did not like group work very much before because most of the group work will be a show for students who had better English. But in this training program, I enjoyed the group work since each member had something of his/her own to share with others. The full participation of group members as well as the differences contributed by group members helped us to build a richer map.

Without its visualized presentation of participants’ existing schemata and logic in hierarchical branches with CMM, the effect of schema strategy intervention would be significantly reduced. On the one hand, Visualization of schemata would foster the organization and clarity of thought rather than isolated knowledge (Al-Jarf, 2011). On the other hand, it keeps learning more personalized and customized since it “allows the reader to activate schema, promote interest, and provide links between the known and the unknown” (Benbellal, 2020 p. 3). Furthermore, it can effectively promote students’ cooperative learning and enhance meaning construction which is considered as “useful for broadening the team’s horizons, stimulating creativity, structuring thinking process and tackling the complexity of the project” (Zahedi & Heaton, 2016).

This study is a typical representation of student-centred learning since it involves not just individual work but also pair sharing and group discussion in the form of mind mapping production, assimilation and accommodation with corrective feedback from both peers and teacher. Teacher becomes the facilitator providing guidance wherever necessary. Students become more active through collaborative learning (Tanggapan, 2018; Vitro, 2018). According to (Arulchelvan et al., 2019), involving students in digital learning collaboratively enhances their interest, motivation, self-esteem, and belief in their abilities to present confidently. In this study, collaborative work using DMM provides opportunities for meaning negotiation as learners struggle to build new knowledge and extend existing ones with the teacher presenting opportunities for learning and encouraging reflective thinking in students through collaborative peer activities.

According to the interview, cooperation with other students is the most commonly confirmed positive influencing factor followed by visualization of CMM and personalization of schemata. One thing worth mentioning is that these three positive contributing factors are closely linked to the advantages of DMM.

RQ 3. The Negative influencing factors of Schema Strategy Instruction Using CMM for Chinese University Students

When the participants were asked to give further explanations for negative influencing factors of SSI using CMM, their answers concentrate mainly on imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty caused by cooperative work, and problems with CMM (see, Table 8).

For imbalanced time arrangement, participants explained that the time spent on the individual work was more than enough while the time for pair and group work was insufficient. Just as Miss Guo stated:

I felt the pair work and the group discussions were harder and more time-consuming than individual work. I can finish the individual work easily because I just need to present what I know about the topic. It’s not difficult. But for the pair work and group discussion, sometimes we cannot get it done in the given time. Of course, I think it is closely related to our English proficiency.

One thing worth mentioning from Miss Guo’s statement is that imbalanced time arrangement may be caused by objective factor of difficulty as well as subjective factor of participant’s English proficiency. They believe since cooperative work was more demanding and thus more difficult, more time should be attributed while individual work was relatively easier, less time should be attributed.

As the interview progressed, the influence of English proficiency on participants’ perception of task difficulty reappears. In difficulty caused by cooperative work, they specifically pointed out that English proficiency is the key factor restricts their performance when they work together even though they enjoyed the cooperation. Miss Li explained it as follows:

I liked the pair and group discussion but the truth is that I had a really hard time during these processes. You know, my speaking English is not so good. It is not easy for me to express myself and understand others clearly. Even though it is a great chance for me to practice speaking English, I had to say the process for pair work and group discussion is painful. I do wish my English could be better, so I can enjoy the cooperative activities more.

It was obvious that students had contradictory feelings toward cooperative work. On the one hand, they valued the cooperative work as a great chance to practice speaking English and they also liked to work together and contribute to teamwork. On the other hand, they felt stressed because of the high requirement for speaking English in those cooperative activities and demonstrated low self-efficacy. (Bandura, 1986) defines self-efficacy as people’s judgment of their capabilities to “organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance” (p. 391). In this study, self-efficacy is viewed as participants’ perceptions and their capabilities to perform cooperative tasks with existing schemata using DMM. (Tavakoli & Koosha, 2016) asserted that strategy intervention could promote participants’ self-efficacy significantly. However, this study found that SSI not only did not improve their sense of self-efficacy but it was also negatively affected.

Besides problems with time arrangement and cooperative activities, CMM was regarded as problematic too. During the interview, three interviewees (Miss Tao, Miss Meng, and Miss Xiao) viewed CMM as complicated and time-consuming. They expressed some kind of discomfort with all the drawing and colouring. Interestingly, these three interviewees were the only three who did not improve in the post-test scores. Miss Meng explained:

I liked the idea of using CMM for reading. But when it comes to practice, I found it’s very time and energy-consuming to design a satisfactory mind map. I was constantly struggling with how to draw a mind map and how to organize it beautifully before reading, it takes a lot of time and energy. But when I need to do the reading, I was kind of exhausted and couldn’t concentrate enough to read effectively.

This was the first time for those Chinese university students to use mind mapping tool, even though training for mind mapping use before the treatment was provided, some students still found it “time and energy consuming”, which led to participants feeling tired and unable to concentrate on reading. This confirmed that mind mapping is not for all students, which is in consistency with the study done by (Kadagidze, 2016), who suggested time consumption, drawing and coloring might be problematic for some students. Thus, it is suggested that an initial investment of time and energy from both teacher and students is necessary to improve students’ familiarity with mind mapping and the effectiveness of using CMM with regular practice (Vitulli & Giles, 2016).

Generally speaking, interviewees regarded imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty in cooperative work, and the problem with CMM use as negative influencing factors. As noted above, the negative influencing factors of the imbalanced time arrangement and difficulty in cooperative work was mainly caused by the difficulty of the task itself, which works in conjunction with participants’ subjective perception of English proficiency. Both of them contribute to the general task difficulty. And the problem with CMM is closely related to the characteristics of DMM. It is undeniable that mind maps used in reading has significant advantages, which doesn’t mean negligence of its problems. However, there is not enough research on its problems in practical application since existing researches pay more attention to its theoretical advantages. In this study, students’ feedback of the negative distracting influence of mind mapping on reading is critical to expand the overall understanding of DMM use in reading teaching.

14. Conclusion

By adopting a mixed method of case study approach, the present study explored the effectiveness of schema strategy instruction using DMM on reading comprehension for Chinese university students in South Korea. It demonstrated how readers can become the meaning constructors and active participants in English reading using computer-aided schema strategy. Based on the data collected, three implications are put forward for future studies.

Firstly, the schema strategy training using CMM did improve participants’ meta-cognitive awareness of schema strategy use in reading even though it might not influence reading comprehension test scores significantly in the short term. This finding presented contradiction to the confirmed efficiency of schema strategy on reading comprehension from mainstream research (Al Asmari & Javid, 2018; Bensalah & Guerroudj, 2020; Cho & Ma, 2020). Reading comprehension test scores can be used as an evaluation criterion to assess learning outcomes, however, they should not be treated as the only criterion. Meta-cognitive awareness of reading strategies is equally important (Sheikh et al., 2019). For future strategy intervention programs, the influence of strategy instruction on the meta-cognitive level should be taken into consideration too.

Secondly, visualization of CMM, personalization of schemata, and cooperation among participants were regarded as positive influencing factors of schema strategy instruction using DMM. What is noteworthy is that all these three positive contributing factors are closely linked to the advantages of DMM. Besides its promotion on individuality (Nitchot et al., 2019), digital mind mapping use in teaching is regarded as a convenient tool that allows cooperation (Arulchelvan et al., 2019) and increases learners’ cognitive skills and helps learners thinking, comprehending and recalling skills (Cahyani, 2015). Thus, it is suggested to promote digital mind mapping in reading strategy instruction to construct a visualized and meaningful learning experience for students both as individuals and as a group.

Thirdly, negative influencing factors of imbalanced time arrangement, difficulty in cooperative work, and problem with CMM use are the direction for future research. It is worth noting that factors of imbalanced time arrangement and difficulty in cooperative work were not just influenced by objective task difficulty but also influenced by self-efficacy, that is, participants’ subjective perception of English proficiency. On the one hand, self-efficacy is the emerging factor that affect the effectiveness of strategy instruction in this study. On the other hand, it is demonstrated that reading strategic intervention can not fundamentally improve participants’ sense of self-efficacy. This finding is contrary to the confirmed promoting effect of strategy intervention on participants’ self-efficacy by (Tavakoli & Koosha, 2016). As for the mind mapping use, its disadvantages in teaching practice were unfolded as time and energy consuming, which led to the failed concentration in final reading. It is another confirmation of the previous research conclusion made by (Kadagidze, 2016), who elaborated that time consumption and awkwardness caused by forced drawing would be the major issue to use mind mapping in teaching practice. There is not enough research to demonstrate the weakness of mind mapping use in practical application since more attention has been attributed to its advantages (Astriani et al., 2020; Kadagidze, 2016; Nitchot et al., 2019). In this study, emerging factor of self-efficacy and the negative influence of mind mapping on reading is critical to expand the overall understanding of schema strategy instruction using DMM in reading.

“Teaching reading can no longer be ‘one size fits all’. We need a variety of approaches-and for a variety of mediums” (Haiken & Furman, 2022, p.XII). The significance of this study is not to provide a perfect unified teaching model for strategy intervention, but to explore the diversification of strategy instruction and the possibility to meet the diversified needs of students. To conclude, the schema strategy training model constructed in the study would play a vital role in attempts to improve the effectiveness of strategy instruction in EFL context.

15. Limitations

Despite the delicacy of the research design and important findings, three major limitations are presented in a small-scale, in-depth, descriptive, and interpretive qualitative research like this, including limitations in transferability, subjectivity, and finiteness. Firstly, given the small sample size, the thick description provided in this study did not guarantee that the results were transferable to any population beyond. Secondly, although subjectivity is an inevitable engagement with the world in which meanings and realities are constructed not just discovered (Duff, 2008), there might be preconceived notions on the part of the researcher as well as the participants. Thus, extracts from interviews were used as supporting evidence which permits the readers to make their judgments of the arguments being presented. Thirdly, the finiteness of this study is limited since variables such as linguistic knowledge, cognitive skill, general experience, and knowledge of the world on the part of the learners were not analyzed while a successful reading of any passage depends upon a combination of all of them. Although this small-scale study needs substantiation by further experimental work, it has contributed to raising awareness of the significance of reading strategy training for Chinese university students in EFL context.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study has been supported by the Program for the Philosophy and Social Sciences Research of Higher Learning Institutions of Shanxi (山西省高等学校哲学社会科学研究项目资助， abbreviated as PSSR), China, grant number2020W122.

Notes on contributors

Xiaofang Yan

Xiaofang Yan is an English lecturer at Shanxi Datong University, China. She finished her MA in TESOL-MALL at Woosong University and her Ph.D. in TESOL at Pai Chai University, Daejeon, South Korea. She is involved in teaching various English courses for both English majors and non-English majors at the BA level. Her main areas of research interest are English teaching methodology, production-oriented approach, self-directed learning and computer-assisted language learning. Email: [email protected] Tel:[phone].

Jungtae Kim

Jungtae Kim is an associate professor at Pai Chai University, South Korea. He got his PhD. of English pedagogy in Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His main research interests focus on language assessment, web/mobile-based test development, and multimedia teaching methods. He has presented at national and international conferences and published research papers on teaching methods and language testing in a number of journals and conference proceedings. Email: [email protected] Tel: [phone].

APPENDIX

The English version of group interview questions:

1) Do you think schema strategy instruction using digital mind mapping is effective to improve your reading comprehension? Why or why not?

2) What do you think are the advantages of the schema strategy instruction using digital mind mapping?

3) What do you think are the negative influencing factors of the schema strategy instruction using digital mind mapping?

The Chinese version of group interview questions:

1). 你是否认为此次使用思维导图辅助的图式阅读策略训练对提高你的阅读理解能力有帮助? 并请解释原因。

2). 在此次使用思维导图辅助的图式阅读策略训练的学习过程中, 你认为它的优点是什么?

3). 在此次使用思维导图辅助的图式阅读策略训练的学习过程中, 你认为它的缺点是什么?