




































76 

 ELT FORUM 3 (1) (2014) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 
 

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC MAPPING STRATEGY TO 

IMPROVE STUDENTS` VOCABULARY MASTERY 

 

Indriarti   

 

English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Semarang, Indonesia 

 

Article Info 

________________ 
Article History: 

Received in April 2014 

Approved in Mei 2014 

Published in Juni 2014 

________________ 
Keywords: 

semantic mapping strategy, 

vocabulary, quasi-

experimental study 

____________________ 

Abstract
 

___________________________________________________________________ 

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of semantic mapping strategy to improve 

students` vocabulary mastery. The research design of this study was a quasi experimental design. 

The population was the seventh grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Batang in the academic year of 

2013/2014. The samples consisted of 72 students, which divided into two groups, they were 

experimental group and control group. In order to collect data about students’ vocabulary mastery 

improvement and responses toward the implementation of semantic mapping strategy, the writer 

used vocabulary test and questionnaire. During the treatment, students in experimental group used 

semantic mapping strategy, while students in control group used wordlists strategy. In the pre test 

results, the mean score of the experimental group was 62,91 and the control group was 63,19. 

However, there was improvement in post test results. The analysis of the test result showed that the 

students` improvement of experimental group was higher than control group. In the post test, the 

mean score of the experimental group was 82,08 while the control group got 76,38. Based on 

statistical analysis by using t-test formula, indicated that the t-test was 3,29 and t-table was 1,99. It 

means that t-value was higher than t-table (3,29 >1,99). As a result, there is a significant difference 

in vocabulary achievement between the students who are taught by using semantic mapping strategy 

and those who are taught by using wordlists strategy. Based on the result of this study, the writer 

concluded that semantic mapping strategy is more effective to be implemented in teaching vocabulary 

to improve students` vocabulary mastery than wordlists strategy. 

 

© 2014 Universitas Negeri Semarang 

 
 Correspondent Address:  

   B3 Building,  FBS Unnes  

   Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 

   E-mail: arti.indri@yahoo.com 

 

ISSN 2252-6706 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

77 

INTRODUCTION 

 

Vocabulary is one of the major 

components of a language learning which has to 

be mastered by the learners. Vocabulary itself is 

words in a specific language which have meaning 

in which label objects, actions and ideas that 

conveys information. It will be impossible to 

learn a language without having vocabulary 

mastery because learners cannot deliver a certain 

meaning to communicate with others in a 

particular language, such as English.  

Laufer (1997:140) states that learning 

vocabulary is one of the most important elements 

without which neither comprehension nor 

production of language is possible. On the other 

word, it means that learning vocabulary cannot 

be separated from other language skills, such as 

listening, speaking, reading and writing. The 

more words the learners know, they will be more 

better to understand what they hear or read. And, 

the more words they have, they will be more 

accurate to express their ideas in spoken or 

written form .  

As a foreign language, learning English 

vocabulary seems difficult for some Indonesian 

students to master as it is completely different 

from Indonesian language itself. They find 

difficulty to memorize new words and to enlarge 

their vocabulary knowledge. In fact, having low 

vocabulary proficiency will cause an obstacle for 

the students in learning English. While they have 

limited vocabulary in their minds, they are not 

able to use language accurately. It means that if 

the students are lack of vocabulary, it will 

circumscribe them to use language skillfully to 

express their ideas. 

One of the reasons for the students’ low 

vocabulary mastery and memorization can be 

influenced by teacher`s strategy in teaching 

vocabulary. Some teachers might still use 

conventional strategy which cannot challenge the 

students to learn vocabulary independently such 

as wordlits strategy. They let the students depend 

more on the meaning of wordlists in textbook. As 

a result, the students cannot explore their 

vocabulary knowledge which they have known 

before, and they accustomed to learn vocabulary 

passively. 

Wordlists strategy as one of the 

conventional strategies in teaching vocabulary, is 

a strategy which delivers list of some difficult 

words and their meanings. Through this strategy, 

the teachers usually offer the meaning of the 

words only. They directly show the target words 

to the students, then ask them to read and 

memorize the vocabulary items. It is helpful for 

the students to remember new words but in a 

short time. Hence, this strategy less help the 

students to master the target vocabulary better.  

The lack of vocabulary knowledge creates 

a barrier that discourages the students in learning 

English. Thus, it is a big challenge for the teachers 

to find effective and efficient strategy in teaching 

vocabulary so that they can help the students to 

memorize words better to improve their 

vocabulary achievement. Nevertheless, the aim 

of teaching vocabulary should provide the 

students with the ability to distinguish the 

meaning of words and to enhance the words 

mastering usage instead of knowing the meaning 

only. Therefore, the teachers should vary their 

strategy in teaching vocabulary and motivate the 

students to learn English vocabulary actively and 

independently. 

One of the strategies that can be used to 

teach vocabulary is a semantic mapping. 

According to Graves (2008:56), semantic 

mapping is one of the most powerful approaches 

to teach vocabulary because it engages students in 

thinking about word relationships. This strategy 

increases students’ active exploration of word 

relationships, therefore, it leads them to a deeper 

understanding of word meanings by developing 

their conceptual knowledge related to word. 

Hence, this strategy can help the students to 

memorize some new words easily and effectively. 

 

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 

 

2.1 Definition of Semantic Mapping 

Semantic mapping strategy allows the 

students to explore their knowledge of vocabulary 

by creating a map of word. It consists of a 

diagram which displays a single word or phrase, 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

78 

placed in the centre as topic and another 

associated words are added in the form of 

branches. According to Graves (2008:56) 

semantic mapping is one of the most powerful 

approaches to teach vocabulary because it 

engages students in thinking about word 

relationships. The strategy promotes students’ 

active exploration of word relationships to a 

deeper understanding of word meanings by 

developing their conceptual knowledge related to 

words. In addition, Winters (2001:87) asserts that 

semantic mapping represent a graphic teaching 

strategy which has been devised to help learners 

build the conceptual connections they need to 

decipher any word completely.  

In short, semantic mapping is a strategy for 

representing word concepts graphically. It helps 

the students to develop their vocabulary through 

a deeper understanding conceptual knowledge by 

displaying words into categories to show how 

they are related to each other.  

 

2.2 Advantages of Using Semantic Mapping 

Semantic mapping is a visual display that 

demonstrates relationships between one word to 

another. There are seven advantages of using 

semantic mapping in teaching-learning process: 

1. Representing ideas or views from a large 

group of participants or stakeholders in 

an easy-to-interpret format. 

2. Helping students brainstorm and 

generate new ideas. 

3. Encouraging students to discover new 

concepts and the propositions that 

connect them. 

4. Allowing students to more clearly 

communicate ideas, thoughts and 

information. 

5. Identifying complex relationships 

between issues, factors, and so on in a 

tangible or graphic format. 

6. Participating focused, everybody can 

have his or her ideas represented. 

7. Promoting active participation, therefore 

ensures that participants stay on task. 

 

 

 

2.3 Definition of Vocabulary 

Vocabulary is all the words in a language 

which has meaning that produced by human 

beings to express their mind. They use words in 

communication to convey meaning so that others 

can understand them. Hatch and Brown 

(1995:24) state that vocabulary is a list or set of 

words particular language or a list or set or words 

individual speakers of language might use. 

According to Kamil and Hiebert (2005:3), 

generically, vocabulary is the knowledge of 

meanings of words. Besides, another definition of 

vocabulary is stated by McCarthy (1990:32). He 

states that vocabulary is defined as words in a 

specific language or freestanding items of 

language that have meaning.  

Based on some theories, the writer defines 

that vocabulary is a word or list of words which 

have meanings and used by individual or group 

to communicate with others either in verbal or 

written communication.  

 

2.4 Vocabulary Mastery 

Vocabulary is an important element which 

has to be mastered in learning a language. 

Hornby (1995:207) stated that mastery means 

great knowledge about understanding of a 

particular thing. In addition, Fries (1945:22) 

stated: 

We never separate from mastery of 

vocabulary, because whenever we think of 

language learning, we usually think of mastering 

the vocabulary or learning the word. The words 

one knows actually depend on the experience one 

has got, for example a child’s experience is very 

limited in its range, and therefore, his vocabulary 

is limited too. 

Hence, vocabulary mastery is someone’s 

ability to understand or to use words in a 

language. If the learners want to learn a particular 

language, such as English, they should develop 

their vocabulary mastery first because it will 

influence every step of the process in learning 

language itself. 

 

2.5 The Importance of Learning Vocabulary 

Learning vocabulary becomes essential 

aspect in learning a language. The mastery of 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

79 

vocabulary will determine the mastery of others 

language skills. It is impossible to use language 

skillfully when the students have limited 

vocabulary in their minds.  

According to Laufer (1997:142), learning 

vocabulary is one of the most important elements 

without which neither comprehension nor 

production of language is possible. It would be 

impossible to learn a language without having 

vocabulary mastery because people need several 

words to convey the intended meaning to 

communicate with others.  

Thus, learning vocabulary is a central 

component of language learning. Vocabulary 

itself is a core component of language proficiency 

and becomes the basis for how well the learners 

listen, speak, read, and write. Without having 

vocabulary mastery, it is difficult for learners to 

convey the information which they want to 

express. Meanwhile, with a good knowledge of 

vocabulary, learners may feel confident in 

communication either spoken or written. 

 

2.6 The Strengths of Using Semantic Mapping 

in Teaching Vocabulary 

There are some advantages in teaching 

vocabulary using semantic mapping: 

1. Helping students to remember the words 

easily because it organized in some 

categories of word. 

2. Decreasing students’ boredom in learning 

vocabulary. 

3. Helping students become active participants 

in the class because they can have their ideas 

represented. 

4. Increasing the students’ motivation to learn 

new vocabulary because of the 

attractiveness of semantic mapping strategy 

in teaching vocabulary. 

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

 

The present study conducted a quasi-

experimental study as the research design. 

According to Creswell (2009: 154), quasi-

experimental is a form of experimental research 

in which individuals are not randomly assigned 

to groups. In this study, non-equivalent control 

group design was used. A non-equivalent 

groups design includes an existing group of 

participants who receive a treatment and another 

existing group of participants to serve as a control 

group. The subject of this study was students of 

SMP Negeri 4 Batang in the academic year 

2013/2014. The writer divided the subject of the 

study into two groups, VII A assigned to 

experimental group and VII B  as control group. 

During the treatment, students in experimental 

group used semantic mapping strategy in 

teaching vocabulary, while students in control 

group used wordlists strategy.  

In order to collect data about students’ 

vocabulary mastery improvement between the 

two groups and to compare the effectiveness of 

two strategies in improving students` vocabulary 

mastery, the writer used vocabulary test as a main 

instrument. Besides, to get more additional 

information on the students’ perceptions and 

interests of the implementation of semantic 

mapping strategy that could not be noted by the 

tests, questionnaire was used. 

The research design of the study can be 

described as follows: 

 

 

R 01 X 02 

R 03 Y 04 

in which, 

R :  respondents, 

01 : pre-test for the experimental group 

02 : post-test for the experimental group 

03 : pre-test for the control group 

04 : post-test for control group  

X  : treatment using semantic mapping strategy 

Y  : treatment using wordlists strategy (conventional strategy)  



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

80 

In this study, the writer divided the subject 

of the study into two groups, an experimental 

group and a control group. Before and after the 

experiment, both groups were given pre-test and 

post-test of vocabulary knowledge. Both groups 

took pre-test (01) and (03) to measure their early 

vocabulary mastery before getting the 

experiment. During the experiment, the 

experimental group was taught by using semantic 

mapping strategy (X), while the wordlists (Y), as 

a conventional strategy was performed to the 

control group. After the experiment, the same 

post-tests (02) and (04) were administrated to 

investigate whether any significant differences in 

learning vocabulary between the two groups.  

In addition, to support the primary data 

and to get more additional information on 

students’ perceptions and interests of the 

implementation of semantic mapping strategy 

that could not be noted by the tests, the writer 

used questionnaire. It was carried out after the 

treatment for experimental group only. 

The result of test was analyzed using t-test 

formula to make sure whether there was a 

significant difference between pre-test and post 

test between experimental and control groups or 

not and to know which strategy was more 

effective to improve students` vocabulary 

mastery. However, the standard deviation should 

be computed before counting the t-test. The 

formula of standard deviation is as follows: 

 

 

 

 

In which, 

s   = standard deviation of both groups 

n1  = students amount of experimental group 

s1 = standard deviation of experimental group 

n2  = students amount of control group 

s2  = standard deviation of control group 

To find out the t-value of the significant difference between the two means of the pre-test and 

post-test, the formula is as follows:    

 

 

 

 

In which, 

t   = t-value 

s   = standard deviation of both groups 

X1  = mean of experimental group 

n1 = students amount of experimental group 

X2  = mean of control group 

n2  = students amount of control group  

  

RESULT AND ANALYSIS 

 

4.1 Pre Test Findings 

A pre-test was held at the beginning of the 

study. It had a purpose to know the early 

condition of the students’ vocabulary mastery 

before getting treatments. It was conducted on 

Wednesday, February 19th 2014 for control group 

and on Thursday, February 20th 2014 for 

experimental group. In the pre test, the students 

had to answer 20 multiple-choice items in 35 

minutes. The result of pre-test in experimental 

and control group could be seen in the following 

tables: 

 

t = 
X1̅̅̅̅ − X2̅̅̅̅

𝑠√
1

𝑛1
+

1

𝑛2

 

 

s =√
(𝑛1−1)𝑠1

2+(𝑛2−1)𝑠2
2

𝑛1 + 𝑛2− 2
 

 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

81 

Experimental Group Pre test Score 

 

Σ (the total score) 2265 

N 36 

Maximum Score 80 

Minimum Score 35 

Mean 62,91 

The table shows that the experimental 

group got total scores 2265 in doing pre test. 

Next, the mean score of this group was 62,91. 

Different from the table above, the students’ 

scores of the pre-test in the control group is 

presented in the following table. 

 

Control Group Pre test Score 

 

Σ (the total score) 2275 

N 36 

Maximum Score 85 

Minimum Score 45 

Mean 63,19 

Based on the table above, it can be seen 

that the total scores of pre test in control group 

was 2275 and the mean score of the students’ 

result in this group was 63,19. The result of pre 

test in control group was slightly different from 

the experimental group. So, the writer concluded 

that two groups had equal level vocabulary 

mastery before getting the treatment. 

 

4.2 Implementation of the Experiment 

In the present study, semantic mapping 

strategy was applied as a treatment to improve 

students` vocabulary mastery. The treatment 

form of this study was teaching-learning process 

using semantic mapping strategy in the 

classroom. The process of giving treatment to 

make sure that the semantic mapping strategy 

definitely gave effect to improve students’ 

vocabulary achievement and to know whether 

semantic mapping strategy was more effective to 

teach vocabulary compared to wordlists strategy 

as conventional one. 

After pre test was given, the treatment of 

teaching vocabulary by semantic mapping 

strategy was given to the students in experimental 

group. The treatment was conducted for 4 

meetings. Each meeting needed 80 minutes and 

had different materials about vocabularies. There 

were four themes of vocabularies related to 

procedure text that the teacher gave to the 

students. Those were vocabulary about how to 

make a cup of tea, vocabulary about how to tie a 

neck tie, vocabulary about how to make cheese 

noodle omelette, and vocabulary about how to 

plant a flower. The process of giving treatment in 

teaching vocabulary through semantic mapping 

strategy in experimental group as follows: 

 First Treatment 

In the first meeting, the students learnt new 

vocabulary about how to make a cup of tea 

through semantic mapping strategy. In the 

beginning of lesson, the teacher played a video 

about procedure text how to make a cup of tea to 

stimulate the students` vocabularies knowledge. 

Then, she wrote a phrase of how to make a cup 

of tea as a main topic on the center of board. 

Next, she invited the students to generate as 

many words as possible related to the topic. The 

students did brainstorming and classified the 

words into their categories. Next, they 

constructed a map of words and also elaborated 

on their map with the meanings those 

vocabularies. Individual assisgnment was given 

in the end of the lesson related to semantic 

mapping. 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

82 

 Second Treatment 

In the second meeting, the students learnt 

new vocabulary about how to tie a neck tie 

through semantic mapping strategy. Teacher 

asked the students to guess what was in the box. 

She showed a real thing of tie. She applied 

semantic mapping strategy to brainstrom their 

vocabulary related to the topic.  The students did 

exercises related to the topic. Teacher asked one 

of the students to come forward and demostrated 

how to tie a neck tie in front of the class. Teacher 

asked the students to make a group and played a 

game related to semantic mapping by number 

head together. 

 Third Treatment 

In the third meeting, the students learnt 

new vocabulary about how to make cheese 

noodle omelette through semantic mapping 

strategy. The teacher showed a real cheese 

omelette to the students. She wrote the topic of 

how to make cheese noodle omelette on the 

board. The students did brainstorming and 

generate as many words as possible related to the 

topic. Next, they classified the words into their 

categories and constructed a map of words 

related procedure of how to make a cheese noodle 

omelette. Teacher showed some words related to 

cooking on the slides. In the end of the lesson, the 

teacher gave assignment related to the material in 

group and individually. 

 Fourth Treatment 

In the fourth meeting, the students learnt 

new vocabulary about how to plant a flower  

through semantic mapping strategy. Teacher 

showed the students some picture related to plant 

flower. Teacher asked the students to make a 

group and gave them assignment related to 

semantic mapping. The students did a group 

discussion to match pictures and rearrange 

correct sentences related to how to plant a flower 

by semantic mapping strategy . Next, the students 

presented the results of group discussion in front 

of the  class. In the end of lesson, they stuck their 

works related to semantic mapping on the sticky 

wall.  

Different from the experimental group, in 

control group, the conventional strategy by using 

wordlists was conducted in teaching procedure 

text. The process of giving materials in control 

group was the same with experimental group. 

The treatment in control group was also 

conducted for four meetings which needed 80 

minutes and each meeting had different materials 

of vocabularies related to procedure text. The 

themes of vocabularies were similiar to 

experimental group. In short, the process of 

conducting treatment between experimental 

group and control group was the same, the 

difference only appeared on teaching strategy. 

During the learning process, the experimental 

group was taught by using semantic mapping 

strategy while the control group by using 

wordlists strategy.  

In the last activity of the experiment, the 

writer gave post test to both groups. In addition, 

questionaire was given to experimental group to 

know the students` interests and perceptions 

towards the implemetation of semantic mapping 

strategy in teaching vocabulary.  

 

4.3 Post Test Findings 

The post test was used to measure the 

students’ vocabulary achievement after getting 

the treatment. The students were asked to answer 

20 questions as similar as the pre-test but the 

positions of question numbers were reshuffled. 

The time allocation was also 35 minutes. The 

post test was given on Wednesday, March 13th 

2014 for control group and on Thursday, March 

14th 2014. The post test results of each group are 

shown by the tables below: 

 

 

Control Group Post-test Score 

Σ (the total score) 2750 

N 36 

Maximum Score 95 

Minimum Score 65 

Mean 76,38 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

83 

Based on the post test result, the control 

group got total score 2750. The mean score of this 

group was also increased, it was 76,38. So, the 

result showed that there was an improvement in 

post test result than pre-test. The results of 

experimental group post test score can be seen as 

follows: 

 

Experimental Group Post Test Score 

Σ (the total score) 2955 

N 36 

Maximum Score 95 

Minimum Score 65 

Mean 82,08 

Based on the tables above, the total score 

of experimental group was 2955. This group got 

mean score 82,08. It meant the students` 

improvement of experimental group was more 

higher than control group. In rather simple 

observation, there was a significant difference in 

vocabualry mastery between students of 

experimental group and control group after 

getting the treatment by using semantic mapping 

strategy.  Based on the post test results, it can be 

concluded that semantic mapping was more 

effective to improve students` vocabulary mastery 

than wordlists strategy. 

 

4.4 Mean Scores Differences between Pre Test 

and Post Test of Experimental Group and 

Control Group 

The significant difference of the 

experiment could be seen through the difference 

of means scores in two groups.  

a. The mean score of pre test of experimental 

group 

            𝑀𝑥 =  
2265

36
 

             = 62,91 

b. The mean score of pre test of control group 

             𝑀𝑦 =  
2275

36
 

= 63,19 

c. The mean score of post test of 

experimental group 

        𝑀𝑥 =  
2955

36
 

        = 82,08 

d. The mean score of post test of control 

group 

        𝑀y =  
2750

36
 

        = 76,38 

The following graph presented the mean 

scores result of pre test and post test between the 

two groups:  

 

 

Figure 4.4 Mean Scores between Experimental and Control Group 

 

63,19

62,91

76,38

82,08

Control Group

Experimental Group

Mean Score between two groups in the test

Post Test Pre Test



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

84 

The graph above showed that the mean 

score of the pre test in the experimental group was 

62,91. Meanwhile, the mean score of the post test 

was 82,08. The percentage of the students’ 

improvement of this group was 19,17%. 

Therefore, there was a significant improvement 

between the pre-test and the post-test scores 

achieved by the students of the experimental 

group.  

On the other hand, the mean scores of 

control group also showed an improvement. It 

was 63,19 in the pre test and 76,38 in the post test. 

In this group, there was less improvement than 

the experimental group. The improvement was 

only 13,19%. It means that the difference mean 

score on the experimental group was higher than 

in the control group. In short, the writer 

concluded that there was better improvement of 

the experimental group’s achievement after they 

received the treatment by using semantic 

mapping strategy in teaching vocabulary to 

improve students` vocabulary mastery. 

The clear comparison of mean scores 

between two groups can be seen in the following 

table: 

 

Table 4.4 Mean Scores Comparison 

Group Pre-test Post-test Progress 

Experimental 62,91 82,08 19,17% 

Control 63,19 76,38 13,19% 

The table above demonstrated that there 

were improvements in both groups. However, the 

progress of the experimental group which taught 

by semantic mapping strategy was higher than the 

control group which taught by wordlists strategy. 

To prove the significant improvement of both 

groups, the results need to be tested by using t-

test.  

 

4.5 T-Test Statistical Analysis 

In order to prove the significance 

improvement of both groups, the writer used T-

test formula to examine the hypotheses of this 

study. The result of the t-test becomes the 

quantitative proof whether there is a significant 

difference of the pre-test and post-test between 

two groups or not. The following is the result 

score of post test between both groups: 

 

 Experimental Group Control Group 

Σ (the total score) 2955 2750 

N 36 36 

Mean 82,08 76,38 

Variance (s2) 61,96 49,44 

Standard deviation (s) 7,87 7,03 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

85 

The computation of standard deviation of 

post test scores was as follows: 

𝑆 =  √
(36 −  1)61,96 + (36 −  1)49,44

36 +  36 −  2
 

=  √
2018,6 + 1730,4

70
 

=  √
3899

70
 

=  √55,7 

= 7,463 

 

The computation of tvalue by using t-test 

formula was as follows: 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
�̅�1 −  �̅�2

𝑆√
1

𝑁1
+

1
𝑁2

 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
82,08 −  76,38

7,463√ 1
36

+
1

36

 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
5,7

7,463√0.027 + 0.027
 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
5,7

7,463√0.054
 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
5,7

7,463𝑥 0,232
 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =  
5,7

1,731
 

𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 3,292 

 

- 2 = 70, 

t(0.95)(70) = 1,994 

 

 

        3,29                         1,994 

 

Based on the computation above, it 

showed that there was a significant difference on 

posttest result between experimental and control 

groups because tvalue exceeds ttable (3,292 > 1,994). 

Therefore, there is a significant difference in 

vocabulary achievement between the students 

who are taught by using semantic mapping 

strategy and those who are taught by using 

wordlists strategy. It means, teaching vocabulary 

by using semantic mapping strategy is more 

efffetive to improve students` vocabulary mastery 

of the seventh grade of SMP N 4 Batang in the 

academic year of 2013/2014 than wordlists 

strategy. 

 

4.6 Discussion of Research Findings  

 

4.6.1 Statistical Interpretation 

 The objective of this study was to 

investigate whether there was an effect of using 

semantic mapping strategy in teaching 

vocabulary to improve students` vocabulary 

mastery of the seventh grade students of SMP N 

4 Batang in the academic year of 2013/2014 or 

not. 

The mean scores difference between pre 

test and post test of the experimental and the 

control group were computed to know the 

improvement of students` vocabulary mastery 

before and after getting the treatment. Based on 

the result of pretest, the mean scores of the 

experimental group was 62,91 and control group 

was 63,19. From the pretest, it could be said that 

the basic vocabulary ability of the two groups was 

relatively the same before getting the treatment. 

From the scores, it can be concluded that the two 

groups were homogenous, because there was 

only slight difference in the pretest result between 

the experimental group and the control one.  

After the students received the treatment, 

the mean scores of both groups were gradually 

increased. Meanwhile, the mean of post test score 

of the experimental group was higher than the 

control group. The experimental group got 82,08 

and the control group got 76,38. The percentage 

of the students’ improvement in experimental 

group was 19,17%. However, there was less 

improvement in control group, the percentage 

was only 13,19%. Based on the score, it indicates 

that after getting treatment, the experimental 

group achieved a better result than the control 

group.  

 Another result of the computation 

showed that the t-value obtained 3,29 and t-table 

was 1,994. It meant t-value > t-table (3,29 > 

1,994). Therefore, it could be concluded that 

there was a significant difference between the 

students’ vocabulary achievement between two 

groups after getting the treatment. Thus, the 

Ho accepted 
area 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

86 

hypothesis which stated that “there is a 

significant difference in vocabulary achievement 

between the students who are taught by using 

semantic mapping strategy and those who are 

taught by using wordlists strategy” was accepted.  

 

4.6.2Analysis of the Experiment 

Memorizing English vocabularies is not an 

easy task for students. They need a strategy to 

help them to memorize vocabulary easily and 

effectively. This study introduced semantic 

mapping strategy as an alternative strategy in 

learning, memorizing, and organizing 

vocabularies in interactive way.  

The aim of using this strategy was to find 

out whether it could improve the students’ 

vocabulary mastery or not. During the teaching 

learning process, the students became active and 

independent learners and they looked interested 

in learning vocabulary through semantic 

mapping strategy. Also, the students seemed to be 

enthusiastic to follow the lesson while the writer 

used semantic mapping strategy. This strategy 

motivated the students to increase their ability in 

memorizing vocabularies. Moreover, the 

implementation of semantic mapping strategy in 

teaching vocabulary was more helpful to improve 

students` vocabulary mastery than wordlists 

strategy because of its visual form. The students 

were not only learning the meaning words but 

also they could draw a graphic in some categories 

of word and added some pictures, curved 

branches and colors, so it could help them to 

remember new words easily.   

Although using semantic mapping strategy 

was proven effective in improving the students’ 

vocabulary mastery, this strategy also faced some 

obstacles. First, the teacher needs more time to 

explain the vocabulary by using semantic 

mapping. Second, the teacher should rewrite the 

vocabulary trees on the blackboard and it will be 

more difficult when applied the semantic 

mapping by using pictures. It needs many copies 

and spends a lot of money. Last, the students 

sometimes got too excited during the activity in 

making semantic mapping so that they could not 

hear the explanation well. However, those 

obstacles were not serious problems. The writer 

tried to handle the problems by doing some 

solutions. First, she prepared well the materials 

which will be delivered to the students and gave 

a time limitation in every activity during 

teaching-learning process. Second, she used 

power point slide to help her to show the pictures 

so that it could decrease the copy of papers. Next, 

to overcome the students` less attention while 

they were exciting in doing semantic mapping 

exercises, she gave clear explanation first before 

the students start to do the exercises.  In the end, 

the teaching and learning process could still be 

done well until the experiment was completed.  

 

4.6.3 Analysis of Questionnaire 

After analysing the result of questionnaire, 

it showed that 95 % students were interested in 

learning vocabulary by using semantic mapping 

strategy and agreed that semantic mapping gave 

positive advantages to improve vocabulary 

mastery. 85 % students were motivated in 

learning English vocabulary by semantic 

mapping strategy. 80 % students suggested that 

semantic mapping strategy should be given to 

continue the English materials. 89 % students 

stated that semantic mapping strategy was 

effective to help the students to improve their 

vocabulary mastery. 

Based on the result of questionnare, the 

writer concludes that the students make a good 

improvement and positive progress in vocabulary 

mastery after being taught by semantic mapping 

strategy. This strategy could help the students to 

improve their vocabulary mastery during 

teaching learning process. 

 

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 

 

5.1 Conclusion 

Based on the results of the data analysis 

and research findings, the writer concludes that 

there is a significant difference in vocabulary 

achievement between the students who are taught 

by using semantic mapping strategy and those 

who are taught by using wordlists strategy. The 

conclusion is drawn by analyzing the average 

scores of both experimental and control groups by 

using t-test formula, t-value ishigher than t-table 



 

Indriarti / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

87 

(3,29>1,994). The results show that the use of 

semantic mapping strategy is more effective than 

wordlists strategy to improve students` 

vocabulary mastery. Therefore, it answered the 

research problem how effective is the use of 

semantic mapping strategy in teaching 

vocabulary to improve students` vocabulary 

mastery compared to wordlists strategy 

 

5.2 Suggestion 

Based on the conclusions, some 

suggestions are offered. Firstly, for English 

teachers, it is highly recommended for the 

teachers to use semantic mapping as an 

alternative strategy in teaching vocabulary 

because of its effectiveness to help the students to 

improve their vocabulary mastery. It aids the 

students to develop their vocabulary through a 

deeper understanding conceptual knowledge. 

Therefore, the teachers are expected to use 

semantic mapping strategy because it is effective 

to improve students’ vocabulary mastery and it is 

promising to vocabulary teaching and learning 

process. Secondly, for the students, they are 

suggested to apply semantic mapping strategy in 

organizing and memorizing vocabulary. Thirdly, 

for future researcher, they can use this study as a 

reference to guide them to conduct similar 

research. Hopefully, the result of this study can 

help further researcher to find out new strategy 

about teaching vocabulary by using interesting 

strategies.  

 

REFERENCES 

 

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian 

Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: PT. 

Rineka Cipta. 

Barcroft, J. 2004. Second language vocabulary 

acquisition: A lexical input processing 

approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 2, 

200-208. 

Bateman, T.S. and Zeithamai, c.P. 1990. 

Management: Function and Strategy. 

Homewood, Ill: Irwin. 

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: 

Principles and Classroom Practices.  New 

York: Pearson Education. 

Creswell,  John W. 2009. Research Design 3rd 

edition: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed 

Methods Approaches. USA: SAGE 

Publications, Inc.  

Graves, M. 2008. Instruction on individual words: 

One size does not fit all. In A. E. Farstrup & 

S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to 

say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 56–79). 

Newark, DE: International Reading 

Association. 

Hatch, E., & Brown, C. 1995. Vocabulary, 

semantics and language education. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Homby, As. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner 

Dictionary. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Kamil, Michael L. and Elfrieda H. Hiebert. 2005. 

Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Bringing 

Research to Practice. New Jersey:  Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 

Laufer, B. 1997. What’s in a word that makes it hard 

or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the 

learning with words. In N. Schmitt & M, 

Michael (Eds.) (1997). Vocabulary: 

Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 

140-155). Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Oxford, R. 2001. Research on language learning 

strategies: Purpose, Methods, Issues. 

Presentation. Hokkaido University. 

Seiler, Marcia Ford & et al. 2013. Indicators of 

Efficiency and Effectiveness in Elementary and 

Secondary Education Spending. Frankfort : 

Legislative Research Commission. 

Wintergrest, A. C. DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. 

2001. The construct validity of one learning 

instrument. System , 29, 385- 403. 


