Exploring the Role of Mind Mapping Tools in Scaffolding Narrative Writing in English for Middle-School EFL Students

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of scaffolded English writing instruction using mind mapping tools on English narrative writing proficiency among Chinese middle-school EFL students. Specifically, we examined its effects on four subcomponents of narrative writing compositions: lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Non-equivalent group pre-test–post-test design was employed in this study. The participants were 55 eighth-grade students in an English class. The data were collected through two writing tests administered before and after a two-month intervention. The results showed that students’ writing demonstrated significant improvements in lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. These findings suggest that scaffolded writing instruction with mind mapping can effectively enhance multiple dimensions of writing skills in adolescent EFL learners. This study provides insights into the application of using mind mapping to scaffold EFL learners’ narrative writing proficiency.

1. Introduction

Writing competence is increasingly vital in a globally interconnected environment, where effective communication is essential in academic and professional spheres. The writing process is complex, encompassing linguistic, cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions [1,2]. It involves sophisticated cognitive operations such as planning, organizing, drafting, and revising, which are crucial for producing coherent and meaningful text [3,4,5,6]. Therefore, the quality of writing instruction is critical in fostering students’ writing skills. The research underscores the importance of instructional scaffolds, which bolster writing abilities [7,8,9,10] by providing temporary support that helps learners develop independence in their writing pursuits [11,12].

However, despite the importance of instructional scaffolds in enhancing writing skills, their implementation in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, particularly for adolescent learners, remains under-researched. The majority of existing studies focus on younger EFL students, predominantly at the elementary level [7,13,14], focusing less on the unique challenges faced by adolescents. These challenges include a still-developing vocabulary in English as a new language, limited exposure to English-speaking environments, and distinct cultural communication norms [15,16]. Therefore, it is essential to examine scaffolding strategies tailored to the specific needs of adolescent EFL learners, aiming to foster their writing proficiency.

One particularly promising strategy for enhancing the writing process in adolescent EFL learners is mind mapping [17,18,19,20]. Mind mapping is a graphical tool that aids in organizing and visualizing ideas [21]. It enables students to structure their thoughts in a coherent and visually engaging manner, which can be particularly beneficial in EFL learning contexts. Mind mapping may alleviate the cognitive load associated with writing in a non-native language, as it promotes brainstorming, structures thoughts, and visually represents the relationships between concepts. This tool is essential for students confronting the dual challenges of language acquisition and effective writing [22,23]. By providing a clear and structured framework, mind maps enable EFL learners to develop and articulate their ideas more effectively, fostering overall writing quality [19,24,25].

In this study, we aim to bridge the existing research gap by exploring the application and effectiveness of mind mapping as a scaffolded instructional strategy specifically for improving the writing abilities of middle-school EFL learners. We will explore how this strategy supports their writing performance. By focusing on this specific learner demographic and instructional strategy, our study seeks to provide practical insights that can guide EFL writing instruction and offer practical implications for educators and curriculum designers working with adolescent EFL learners.

2. Writing Instruction for Foreign Language Learners

Writing, often viewed as a complex and formidable task, involves not only linguistic elements but also cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions [1,2]. This complexity intensifies when learning a second or foreign language, where students must master precise linguistic details such as syntactic forms and punctuation [26]. Additionally, the effective use of metacognitive strategies and organization of content is essential for success [27,28,29]. Researchers have underscored the importance of developing robust writing skills as a fundamental component of language learning [30,31].

Despite the critical role of writing in language acquisition, effectively enhancing writing instruction in EFL settings presents significant pedagogical challenges [30]. Learners often struggle with limited exposure to the target language, both orally and in writing, which affects their ability to achieve grammatical accuracy, maintain coherence, and adopt appropriate stylistic choices [32,33]. Instructional strategies should, therefore, be designed to support and advance EFL writing abilities, moving beyond mere grammatical correctness to foster learners’ ability to express ideas creatively and effectively, integrating their diverse linguistic backgrounds, learning styles, and cultural nuances into their writing.

A key strategy in addressing these instructional challenges is the systematic use of scaffoldings to support foreign language learners in acquiring writing skills in a new language. Scaffolding is an instructional approach that provides temporary, adjustable support to students in acquiring new skills [11,12,34]. In the EFL writing context, scaffolding can take various forms, including modeling [7,12,35], guided practice [36,37,38], iterative feedback mechanisms [39,40,41], and the gradual introduction of more complex writing tasks [12,32,42]. By providing structured and progressive support, scaffolding helps learners bridge the gap between their current EFL writing abilities and the desired writing proficiency of the target language. Systematic scaffolding in writing instruction can significantly reduce cognitive loads and facilitate learners’ progression toward more advanced writing skills, ensuring a smoother transition to higher proficiency levels [43,44].

2.1. Scaffolded Writing Instruction

Scaffolded writing instruction is a pedagogical approach that provides temporary and adaptive support to students as they navigate the complexities of the writing process. This method is rooted in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which emphasizes learning within the reach of students with appropriate guidance [11]. Scaffolding is particularly valuable in challenging tasks such as writing, which demands high-level linguistic and cognitive skills. Students often find it difficult to succeed independently at the outset of learning these skills [1,45,46]. Through structured support, scaffolding enables students to progressively move from reliance on help to autonomous proficiency in writing [39,47].

The effectiveness of scaffolded writing instruction is increasingly acknowledged in diverse educational settings, reflecting its adaptability and effectiveness. Studies have assessed various components integral to this approach, emphasizing tools and techniques that facilitate deeper engagement and understanding. Visual aids such as mind maps have been particularly highlighted for their ability to help students structure their thoughts and enhance logical processing [16,19,22]. Additionally, methods like brainstorming, peer feedback, and teacher-guided discussions have been shown to improve students’ ability to generate new ideas, enrich vocabulary, and maintain coherence in their writing [32,48,49,50]. These interventions, by fostering critical thinking and creativity, contribute significantly to the advancement of students’ writing skills across various developmental stages [51,52,53].

Scaffolded writing instruction has shown substantial benefits for EFL learners across various educational levels. Research focusing on students writing in an additional language consistently underscores the transformative role of scaffolded approaches in enhancing both the writing process and performance [9,54,55]. Particularly for emergent bilingual children, scaffolding not only aids in mastering language-specific tasks but also in developing an awareness of the structural differences among languages, which is crucial for effective language acquisition [56,57]. Some studies in EFL writing that utilized engaging scaffolding tools (e.g., Wikis) have demonstrated significant improvements in collaborative writing tasks among EFL learners [14,58].

Although scaffolded writing instruction has demonstrated effectiveness in elementary through high school and even into higher education, specific studies on its application in middle school settings are notably scarce. This educational stage is critical as students transition from foundational writing skills to more advanced academic demands, grappling with expanding vocabularies and diverse cultural communication norms, which are challenges that are intensified for EFL students [15]. Limited but emerging studies show improvements in writing skills through methods like concept mapping [29,59,60] and structured teacher feedback [40,61,62,63], highlighting the potential for significant academic writing gains. Yet, the distinct developmental needs of middle-school students necessitate further empirical exploration to design scaffolded strategies effectively, ensuring that scaffolding supports these learners in mastering complex writing tasks within their ZPD.

2.2. Mind Mapping as a Scaffold in Writing Instruction

Mind mapping [64], a visual organization tool, serves as an effective scaffold in educational settings. It features a central image with main categories branching out in a tree-like structure, allowing students to express and interconnect ideas spontaneously and non-linearly, also promoting their divergent thinking abilities [65,66]. Mind mapping is particularly valuable for high-order cognitive tasks such as writing, aiding in the organization of ideas and clarity of thought. Studies show that mind mapping tools significantly improve elementary students’ vocabulary and engagement with the writing process while also facilitating more efficient note-taking and review processes [67,68]. Additionally, it fosters deeper cognitive processes, improving the organization of ideas and bolstering writing skills through various innovative educational methods [27,69].

Mind mapping may be a particular advantage for middle-school students learning EFL. This tool supports EFL learners by assisting in the planning of writing tasks, helping to generate relevant content and vocabulary, and developing a coherent organization of ideas [19,22,27]. By visualizing relationships between ideas, mind mapping helps these students overcome language barriers, enhancing their writing fluency and the ability to articulate thoughts comprehensively [20]. Research has highlighted its role in improving writing performance by enabling students to better structure their narratives, translate thoughts into coherent texts, and engage actively in revising and evaluating their work [23,53,70].

Despite these benefits, research focusing specifically on the use of mind mapping in scaffolded writing instruction for middle-school EFL learners remains limited. This scarcity is particularly notable given the critical role of writing in language acquisition at this developmental stage. A growing number of studies have begun to explore how mind mapping can enhance idea generation and organizational skills while promoting peer and group discussions among middle-school EFL students [19]. These initial findings suggest a promising area for further empirical investigation, underscoring the need to design and apply scaffolded writing strategies to better support the unique challenges that many adolescent EFL learners experience.

This study explores the effects of mind mapping as a scaffolding tool in enhancing English writing proficiency among middle-school EFL students, particularly aiming to bolster organizational skills and narrative coherence. The writing instructional approach, based on the scaffolded instruction [71] depicted in Figure 1, incorporated cognitive and collaborative processes facilitated by mind maps to enhance writing practices. Figure 1 demonstrates how the writing lessons and activities were designed to support students’ writing process. Initially, in the “enter the situation” phase, students read writing prompts and, with guidance from their teacher, use mind mapping during brainstorming sessions to organize their initial thoughts. This phase encourages independent exploration, providing a structured yet adaptable framework that helps students articulate and connect their ideas to the prompts, thus promoting a clear and organized understanding of the task.

Then, the teacher “sets up scaffolding” by presenting mind mapping worksheets (see a sample in Figure 2) and demonstrating how to organize the topic, content, and structure of their writing on the mind maps. The teacher models identifying key points and supporting details and mapping out ideas such that students can better understand the link between ideas to create a cohesive structure of writing. In the “independent exploration” stage, students individually work on their mind maps. This phase encourages students to delve deeper into their ideas. By exploring their thoughts, students can develop a personal connection to materials.

After the independent exploration, students engage in “cooperative learning” with their peers. In this phase, students work in pairs or small groups to discuss and refine their mind maps. This collaborative effort is instrumental in enhancing the organization and quality of their writing, as it provides opportunities for peer feedback and the exchange of diverse perspectives [48,49]. Through discussion and interaction, students can identify potential weaknesses in their narratives, gain new insights, and improve their drafts [72,73]. Cooperative learning also helps develop students’ social and communication skills [74]. Finally, the “teacher review and evaluation” phase is where students submit their drafts for feedback. The teacher reviews the compositions, providing constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Students then revise their work based on teacher comments to enhance their writing further. Throughout each phase, mind mapping serves as a scaffolding tool, guiding students from their initial comprehension and organization of concepts to collaborative refinement and, ultimately, the coherent presentation of their ideas. This iterative process of mind mapping, drafting, feedback, and revision not only helps students gradually develop their writing competence and confidence but also eases their cognitive burden over time.

2.3. Assessing English Writing Proficiency through the CAF Framework

Research into EFL performance and proficiency reveals it as a complex construct, effectively captured by the CAF framework, which includes complexity, accuracy, and fluency [75,76,77]. This framework has become essential in applied linguistics for evaluating second or foreign language competence. Complexity refers to the use of a broad and sophisticated range of vocabulary and grammatical structures. Lexical complexity is measured by the type-token ratio, which assesses the diversity and sophistication of vocabulary [78,79,80]. Grammatical complexity is gauged through the length and intricacy of T-units, encompassing a main clause and any subordinate clauses [81]. Accuracy involves the adherence to the grammatical norms of the target language and the absence of errors [76]. Fluency is the ability to produce language smoothly and at a pace similar to native speakers, which, in writing, is often measured by the ratio of transitional words to T-units, indicating textual coherence and fluidity [81]. Using the CAF framework, this study aims to provide an objective, multidimensional assessment of English writing skills and a detailed view of students’ language capabilities beyond just a single, holistic writing score.

3. The Current Study

This study explored the effects of integrating mind mapping tools into scaffolded instruction to improve the English writing ability of eighth-grade students in China. The participants (n = 55) involved in this study all came from one English classroom and were taught by the same English teacher. The primary focus of the study was on how this scaffolded writing instructional approach with mind mapping affects changes in students’ English narrative writing compositions. We performed a quasi-experimental single-group pre–post interventional study to examine the effectiveness of the pedagogical approach in non-native English-speaking environments. The research question guiding this study is the following: What effect does the use of mind maps as scaffolding in scaffolded EFL writing instruction have on the English narrative writing outcomes of eighth-grade students, specifically in lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency?

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

The participants were 55 eighth-grade students from a public junior high school located in the southwestern area of China. Of the participants, 58.18% (n = 32) were females, with their ages ranging from 13 to 15 years (M = 13.9 years; SD = 0.57). All participants were native Mandarin speakers and were learning English as a foreign language. These students had commenced their English language education in Grade 3 in elementary schools, and they attained a foundational level of English proficiency. Prior to the study, all participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the study and that their participation in the study was voluntary.

According to China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE), Grade 8 students in China, typically at CSE Level 3, can understand basic everyday conversational language, identify key information, discern main ideas, and infer intentions [82]. At CSE Level 3, students are expected to be capable of routine social interactions, describing experiences and goals, and expressing reasons and viewpoints with basic accuracy, coherence, and fluency. In terms of writing, they can clearly and accurately explain events, comment on familiar topics, and describe daily activities using simple, coherent language in formats like emails and text messages. Reading ability at this level is expected to find detailed information, summarize main points in simple texts (e.g., short stories, essays, and letters), differentiate facts from opinions, and make inferences in straightforward narratives and argumentative texts. Students can also understand connections between ideas by analyzing sentence structures and discourse in medium-complexity materials.

4.2. School Context

The participants’ school is located in the suburb of a city in the southwestern region of China. The city is categorized as an emerging first-tier metropolis experiencing rapid economic development in China. The school offered seven English classes (45 min per lesson) per week: (a) five classes for English reading in which vocabulary and grammar instruction were integrated, (b) one class for English speaking and listening skills where students engaged in oral communication tasks, and (c) one class dedicated to English writing. Moreover, the school required students to participate in 30 min English reading and vocabulary recitation sessions three times a week.

4.3. Research Design and Procedures

This study employed a quasi-experimental research design with pre-test–post-test assessments and a post hoc analysis to compare student outcomes before and after the intervention. The study applied a two-phase testing approach: (a) phase 1: a pre-test before the intervention, (b) phase 2: a post-test upon completion of the intervention. The pre-test was conducted at the beginning of the semester to gauge the baseline level of writing abilities of the students in the treatment group. After the implementation of the intervention was completed, the post-test was conducted to assess students’ writing composition abilities in three CAF dimensions: (a) lexical complexity and grammatical complexity, (b) accuracy, and (c) fluency. To ensure equivalency between the pre-test and post-test prompts (see Figure 3 and Figure 4), we carefully selected topics that were similar in terms of cognitive demand, expected writing length, and complexity. Both prompts required students to write a narrative essay. The pre-test prompt involved a topic to ask students to describe an event from their past, while the post-test prompt followed the same requirement, requiring students to imagine a future event. This parallel in structure and content was intended to control for variability in topic difficulty, ensuring that any observed differences in performance could be attributed to the intervention rather than the prompts themselves.

4.4. Intervention in the Treatment Classroom

The treatment-group lessons were designed to provide systematic instructional scaffolding using mind mapping tools in narrative writing practices in English. There were 10 class sessions (45 min per class session) over the two months: (a) introduction to mind mapping activity (two class sessions) and (b) engagement with writing using the mind mapping tool (eight class sessions). The first two class sessions were designed to help students learn about different types of mind maps (see Figure 5). Students were introduced to eight different mind maps [83], along with the purpose of each mind map, and encouraged to use one or more of them for their own writing. For example, for a writing that has a sequence of a story, students learned how to use a flow map. Subsequently, during the eight class sessions, the teacher and students engaged in writing practices using various mind mapping tools.

Table 1 provides an overview of all eight writing topics and corresponding writing prompts. Each of the eight sessions focused on one writing topic. The prompts, initially crafted by the research assistant, were further refined by the teacher to align with the specific writing topics.

For each class session, the teacher and students engaged in five instructional moves in writing (see Table 2): (a) enter the situation, (b) set up scaffolding, (c) independent exploration with mind mapping, (d) cooperative learning through peer review and discussions, and (e) teacher review and evaluation.

First, the teacher began Lesson 1 by presenting a writing topic, Description of your best friend, along with four specific writing prompts such as (a) Do you have a best friend and what is his/her name? (b) What does he/she look like? (c) What’s his/her personality like? (d) Why do you like him/her? These four prompts were designed to stimulate the recall of pertinent information (e.g., name, appearance, and personal characteristics) and to facilitate their entry into the writing context by activating their existing knowledge of the topic. Second, after introducing the topic and prompts, the teacher presented a brief narrative to students along with an illustrative demonstration of the various mind maps that students learned during the first two class sessions. This reinforcement was further enhanced through an interactive full-class discussion, which helped students explore the topic and potential mind mapping strategies that students could employ. Third, after the teacher-led discussion, students began to create their own mind map individually based on the sample mind map templates introduced in the first two class sessions. In this stage, students brainstormed the topic and jotted down relevant vocabulary, specific content, and structure pertinent to the topic.

Fourth, after completing their individual mind maps, the teacher paired up with students to help them collaborate with their peers to enhance and refine their mind maps. Students were encouraged to engage in open discussion without specific rubrics and ask their partner questions for details and clarity, which further facilitated their brainstorming and mind mapping. This collaborative discussion based on their initial mind maps was intentionally designed to foster a collaborative learning environment and a more authentic and student-driven feedback process, allowing for a diversity of perspectives and ideas to emerge. Students were asked to focus on key aspects of writing, such as clarity, organization, and the use of appropriate vocabulary and grammar, but they had the freedom to explore these elements in their own ways. During this pair discussion, the teacher circulated the classroom, monitoring peer discussions and providing assistance when students had questions or needed additional support. Utilizing their enhanced mind maps through the peer discussion, students then started engaging in drafting their initial essay, focusing on a sentence- and text-level composition with a coherent structure and expressive content. Students were encouraged to draft approximately 100 to 150 words in English in 20–25 min. After finishing their initial draft, students engaged in a peer review process for 5–10 min, in which they exchanged their draft with their partner, read and reviewed the draft, and provided their partner with feedback and suggestions. Based on the peer feedback, individual students revised and refined their compositions. Finally, after students’ collaborative work with their peers, the teacher collected all students’ revised drafts for her review and further feedback after the class session. In the teacher’s evaluation process, she took a holistic approach by focusing on content, text structure, grammar, and punctuation. The teacher returned the draft with her comments to the students.

4.5. Teacher–Researcher Collaborative Planning

Prior to implementing the intervention, the teacher and the research assistant held regular meetings to design the writing instruction and mind mapping materials and discuss the lessons’ scope and sequence. The research assistant focused on introducing the theoretical and research foundations of the study, which included integrating the mind mapping scaffolding approach into the writing instruction and demonstrating the instructional framework. Both the teacher and research assistant worked collaboratively to prepare and develop lesson plans. They also continuously revised and refined the lesson components, responding to each other’s feedback. Additionally, they addressed emerging questions and challenges and planned the data collection procedures.

4.6. Measures

Students’ writing compositions were collected at two main intervals: the beginning of the intervention (pre-test) and the end of the intervention (post-test). To assess these essays, we employed the Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (CAF) framework [81]. This approach, renowned for its substantial reliability and validity, is a reliable method in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and educational practices [84]. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of English writing proficiency among second-language learners. In our study, each of the two writing compositions was evaluated across four dimensions: (a) lexical complexity, (b) grammatical complexity, (c) linguistic accuracy, and (d) fluency. This multi-dimensional analysis allowed for a thorough and nuanced understanding of the students’ writing abilities and their progression over time.

4.7. Measurement of Lexical Complexity

We assessed the lexical complexity of each essay by employing the type-token ratio (TTR), a highly valid and reliable measure [85]. Prior to calculating TTR, all handwritten essays were transcribed into electronic format to facilitate analysis. TTR is an established metric for quantifying vocabulary diversity within written texts, offering insights into the range and variety of an author’s vocabulary use.

The calculation of TTR involved two key elements: (a) vocabulary types and (b) vocabulary tokens. Vocabulary types refer to distinct words in the text, counting each different word only once regardless of how many times it appears. Vocabulary tokens, on the other hand, represent the total number of words used in the text, counting every word occurrence. To calculate TTR, we divided the number of vocabulary types by the number of vocabulary tokens as follows: TTR = (Number of Vocabulary Types)/(Number of Vocabulary Tokens).

A higher TTR indicates a greater diversity in vocabulary usage, suggesting that the students used a wide range of different words in their essays. Conversely, a lower TTR means less vocabulary variety, with more frequent repetition of the same words. For the analysis of word types and tokens, we used Antconc 4.0.0 RC 2.0 [86], a specialized software for textual analysis. This allowed for a more efficient and accurate assessment of the lexical complexity of the essays. The use of this software allowed us to have a consistent and reliable approach to analyzing the lexical features of the essays.

AntConc 4.0.0 RC 2.0 is a corpus analysis toolkit for concordance and text analysis. This tool supports various types of corpus analysis, including keyword frequency analysis, collocation discovery, and concordance plotting. Its user-friendly interface allows for the efficient processing and examination of large text corpora. The program employs a range of metrics (e.g., TTR, the number of words per T-unit, the ratio of language errors to the total number of words, and the ratio of transitional words to T-units) to assess various aspects of written texts such as lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency in English writing.

4.8. Measurement of Grammatical Complexity

We also evaluated the grammatical complexity of each essay by analyzing the number of words per T-unit (W/T), also commonly referred to as T-unit length. A T-unit is defined as a main independent clause along with all its dependent clauses [87]. This measure is a robust indicator of syntactic development in language learners, providing a clear indication of their ability to construct complex sentences [81]. The process of calculating T-units and identifying errors was conducted manually by the teacher and research assistant. To ensure uniformity in counting and interpreting the number of T-units and errors, both parties underwent identical training to maintain consistency in measurement standards. Upon completion, they exchanged texts to cross-verify their counts of T-units and errors. There was a high degree of consistency between the two raters, with an agreement rate of 93% across all students’ writing samples.

T-unit analysis is particularly effective in linguistic research due to its straightforward calculation and interpretation [81]. Longer T-units typically indicate a more advanced use of language, as they reflect the student’s ability to construct sentences with increased syntactic complexity. The simplicity of this method aligns well with the need for a reliable yet uncomplicated approach to evaluating grammatical sophistication. By employing the W/T ratio, we were able to efficiently quantify the level of grammatical complexity in each essay. This metric offered valuable insights into the complexity of language development among English learners, highlighting the extent of their syntactic maturity in their written composition.

4.9. Measurement of Linguistic Accuracy

To measure the degree of linguistic accuracy in each essay, we utilized the ratio of language errors to the total number of words (E/W) as follows: E/W ratio = (Types of Errors)/(Total Number of Words). This ratio is known for its effectiveness in providing a clear, quantifiable measure of linguistic precision in students’ written compositions [88]. To calculate the E/W, we analyzed each essay to identify and count language errors and then divided this count by the total number of words in the essay. The types of errors considered in our analysis included grammatical, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and errors related to coherence and cohesion. Two independent coders were responsible for identifying and counting these errors in students’ written compositions. After completing training, they collaboratively coded a sample student composition to ensure consistency in identifying and categorizing errors. Then, the first coder independently coded all student compositions, while the second coder independently coded every fifth composition. The coders reached an agreement rate of 92% on these compositions for each of the specific errors and resolved any discrepancies.

This comprehensive approach allowed for a thorough evaluation of various aspects of language proficiency, providing a more holistic view of each student’s written language skills. The advantage of using the E/W ratio lies in its ability to account for variations in text length. This is critical as longer texts are not disproportionately penalized for simply having more content, which could naturally include a higher number of errors. Instead of absolute error counts, we used this ratio method to provide a more balanced evaluation by factoring in the overall volume of the written work. By focusing on the proportion of errors within the text, our approach provided a balanced view of accuracy. It reflected not only the students’ command of the English language but also their ability to convey ideas effectively in their written work, despite occasional lapses in correctness.

4.10. Measurement of Fluency

We assessed the fluency of students’ written composition by measuring the extent to which they could structure their ideas coherently and logically. To do this, we employed a specific metric: the ratio of transitional words to T-units. This ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of transitional words (e.g., conjunctions, pronouns, transitional phrases) by the total number of T-units in each written essay: The ratio of transitional words to T-units = (Total Number of Transitional Words)/(Total Number of T-units). The number of transitional words and T-units in each essay was manually tallied by two independent coders. To ensure consistency and reliability in the measurement, the coders underwent training before the coding process. Then, they reviewed sample texts together to align their understanding of transitional words and T-unit definitions. After that, the coders independently coded the essays, which yielded a high agreement rate of 93%.

While fluency is often measured as the total number of words generated in a given span of time [81], we opted to measure the ratio of transitional words to T-unit to capture a broader sense of fluency. Transitional words play an important role in writing, as they facilitate clear connections and smooth transitions between thoughts and ideas. By measuring the use of these words in relation to T-units, which represent individual thought units in writing, we attempted to gain insight into the student’s ability to construct cohesive and coherent sentences and paragraphs. This approach allowed us to evaluate not only students’ command of language but also their skill in composing structured, reader-friendly texts.

The fluency of a student’s writing, as measured by this ratio, reflects their proficiency in the flow of ideas, in which their compositions are not only grammatically correct but also engaging and easy to follow [89]. This metric provides a precise and meaningful measure of writing fluency, which is critical for assessing the overall quality and readability of the student’s written work.

4.11. Data Analysis

To assess the impact of the intervention on student writing outcomes, we performed paired samples t-tests to evaluate differences in students’ writing outcomes between the pre-test and the post-test across the four key dimensions (i.e., lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency). Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science for Windows Version 25.0. For all statistical tests, two-tailed p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Moreover, we calculated the effect size of the two-month intervention on the aforementioned four dimensions of students’ writing. The effect size in this study was Cohen’s d, which was calculated by using SPSS. The benchmarks for effect size interpretation were set as follows: a value of 0.20 represents a “small” effect, 0.50 indicates a “medium” effect, and 0.08 signifies a “large” effect [90].

5. Results

The following section presents the result of the intervention on students’ narrative writing performance across the four dimensions: lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The data were analyzed using pre-test and post-test outcomes to determine the effectiveness of the scaffolded instruction with mind mapping. The result provided a comprehensive view of the students’ overall narrative writing improvement after the intervention.

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of all measures at the pre-test and post-test in the specific group, along with the results from the paired sample t-test analyses. In this study, the intervention’s effects on the student’s writing compositions were observed with Cohen’s d values of 0.94 for lexical complexity, 0.54 for grammatical complexity, 0.40 for accuracy, and 0.79 for fluency. These values suggest varying degrees of effect across the different writing dimensions, with particularly notable effects in lexical complexity and fluency. In the lexical complexity dimension, the results of the paired sample t-test showed significant differences between the two tests conducted before and after the intervention. The lexical complexity of students’ written texts in the post-test (M = 0.65, SD = 0.08) was noticeably higher than that of their texts in the pre-test (M = 0.55, SD = 0.06), yielding a statistically significant difference (t = 9.80, p < 0.001). Figure 6 displays a visual representation of the differences in lexical complexity between the pre-test and post-test.

When it comes to grammatical complexity in post-intervention, students performed better in their written texts. This difference was seen in the post-test results (M = 6.50, SD = 0.96) in comparison to the pre-test (M = 5.81, SD = 0.79), and this contrast was significantly seen in the statistics (t = 5.23, p < 0.001). Figure 7 illustrates these variations in grammatical complexity across the two testing phases.

In terms of linguistic accuracy, the pre-test and post-test results indicated that there was a great improvement in students’ writing accuracy after the intervention. Notably, students in the post-test (M = 0.12, SD = 0.09) significantly outperformed themselves in the pre-test (M = 0.08, SD = 0.06) (t = 3.16, p < 0.002). Figure 8 depicts the accuracy differences between the two data collection occasions.

Regarding fluency, the paired samples t-test showed that students performed less fluently in writing their essays in the pre-test (M = 0.23, SD = 0.08) than in the post-test (M = 0.34, SD = 0.13) (t = 6.51, p < 0.001). Figure 9 visualizes the fluency differences between the testing groups at each stage.

6. Discussion

The current study sought to investigate the effects of scaffolded English writing instruction using mind mapping tools on the narrative writing outcomes of eighth-grade EFL students in China. While previous studies have examined the effects of mind mapping as a scaffolding tool for writing skills [19,20,22], there is limited research specifically targeting adolescent EFL learners. This study contributes to the existing body of literature by providing evidence of the role that mind mapping plays in English narrative writing for adolescent EFL learners, who are in the critical stage of developing writing skills in a foreign language, in two specific ways. First, in the current study, we embedded mind mapping into a systematic scaffolded writing instruction model comprising five steps. This gradual process may have enhanced students’ organizational skills and narrative coherence while also facilitating cognitive and collaborative processes that are crucial for adolescent learners. Second, our study suggests that mind mapping was associated with improvements in students’ lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Previous research has largely focused on the effects of mind mapping on students’ overall English writing abilities [17,24], rarely assessing the specific aspects of writing skills in detail. This study applied CAF metrics to evaluate subcomponents of written compositions, providing a clearer understanding of the association between mind mapping as a scaffolding and improvements in students’ writing abilities, specifically in vocabulary, grammar, accuracy, and fluency.

6.1. Lexical Complexity

Our study suggests that scaffolded writing instruction incorporating mind mapping enhances lexical complexity among adolescent EFL learners. These students, who are still in the process of acquiring advanced vocabulary, often struggle to express nuanced ideas in written form in a foreign language. In comparison to their pre-intervention writing compositions, students exhibited notable improvements in narrative writing with more sophisticated vocabulary. These enhancements can be linked to scaffolded writing instruction involving mind mapping for brainstorming and visualization of ideas, which likely enabled students to access and incorporate a wider variety of words into their writing [21,64]. Given that lexical complexity in writing is substantially associated with background knowledge of writing topics [91], using mind mapping to assist students with their brainstorming and pre-writing planning likely fostered the development of a varied and relevant vocabulary for narrative writing topics. This finding is in line with previous research suggesting that mind mapping enhances lexical diversity by providing a clear, organized framework for idea generation [18,19,23,27].

The increase in lexical complexity is particularly noteworthy given the challenges EFL learners face in acquiring a diverse vocabulary in English. The ability to use a wide range of words in a new language is crucial for expressing nuanced ideas and achieving precision in written compositions. The visual and interactive nature of mind mapping likely made vocabulary learning more engaging and accessible, thus supporting students in expanding their lexical repertoire. This is consistent with studies indicating that visual aids and organizational tools can significantly enhance vocabulary acquisition and retention [68,69].

6.2. Grammatical Complexity

The study also found a significant increase in grammatical complexity. This suggests that mind mapping helped EFL students construct more syntactically complex sentences in English. The visual representation of ideas in mind maps likely supported students in planning and structuring their sentences more effectively, reducing cognitive load and allowing them to focus on incorporating more complex grammatical structures [81]. These findings corroborate earlier studies that highlighted the role of scaffolding in improving syntactic complexity in EFL writing [59,60].

Moreover, the improvement in grammatical complexity indicates the potential of mind mapping to facilitate higher-order thinking skills, such as synthesis, evaluation, and creation, as outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy [92]. Constructing grammatically complex sentences requires students to not only recall and apply grammatical rules but also synthesize multiple ideas and evaluate the relationship between them to create coherent and precise expressions. By helping students organize their thoughts and visualize the relationships between ideas, mind maps may have made it easier for them to experiment with more sophisticated sentence structures. This ability to manage complex syntactic forms is critical for academic writing, where clarity and precision are critical [3].

6.3. Linguistic Accuracy

Our results indicate that after the intervention, students showed a significant improvement in linguistic accuracy post-intervention, as measured by the ratio of language errors to total words. This improvement is likely due to the iterative process of mind mapping, drafting, peer review, and revision, which provided multiple opportunities for students to identify and correct errors with their peers [39; 93]. Through discussion and collaboration, students could recognize potential weaknesses in their narratives, gain new perspectives, and enhance their drafts [72,73]. As students exchanged ideas and received peer feedback within groups, they were more likely to produce correct expressions and minimize errors in their writing, thus improving their writing accuracy [48,49,93,94].

Additionally, teacher review and assessment may have been instrumental in this improvement. Teacher feedback and comments for revision allowed students to learn from their mistakes and refine their writing. This process is aligned with best practices in writing instruction, which emphasize the importance of feedback and revision in developing writing proficiency [41,62]. Additionally, the collaborative learning environment created through peer discussions provided a platform for students to engage in meaningful dialogue about their writing, further reinforcing their understanding of language rules and conventions [49].

6.4. Fluency

Finally, in the aspect of fluency, the results indicated that the scaffolded writing instruction with mind mapping facilitated the logical organization of ideas, which likely helped students compose more cohesive and fluent texts. A plausible explanation for this significant positive effect is that mind mapping may have enhanced students’ note-taking abilities and fostered a deeper cognitive process, allowing them to organize their thoughts in a more coherent way. A mind map is usually helpful for learners to recall and organize their thoughts in one “big picture” image [95]. Students were likely to benefit from mind mapping as it enhances the visualization of conceptual relationships, enabling them to internalize and express ideas comprehensively, thus improving writing fluency [20]. This finding is supported by the evidence from empirical studies that reported improvements in organization through the use of mind mapping to structure students’ narratives logically and coherently [18,19,27,53]. Teacher feedback also likely helped students organize their sentences and ideas in a more smooth manner. This finding is consistent with previous experimental studies that found that teacher feedback improved students’ writing accuracy and significantly enhanced their writing fluency [61,63].

Fluency in writing is critical for maintaining reader engagement and ensuring that ideas are communicated clearly and effectively. The use of transitional words and phrases helps to connect ideas and create a smooth flow of information, which is essential for coherent and persuasive writing. The significant improvement in fluency observed in this study suggests that mind mapping aids in idea generation and the overall structure and readability of EFL students’ writing [70].

While all four dimensions demonstrated significant improvement in students’ narrative writing after a two-month intervention of using scaffolded instruction with mind mapping, lexical complexity, and accuracy show greater gains than grammatical complexity and fluency. The mind mapping for brainstorming helped students expand their vocabulary by offering a structured way to recall and organize a wider range of words. This aligns with previous research showing the benefits of visual aids enhancing lexical diversity [91,95]. Similarly, the structured peer review and teacher feedback process directly contributed to the accuracy of students’ written compositions. It allows students to identify and correct errors more effectively [39,93]. In contrast, improvements in grammatical complexity and fluency were modest since grammatical complexity and fluency require higher cognitive demands. For instance, writing with high grammatical complexity requires a deeper understanding of syntax, showing more challenges for students. It suggested that future scaffolding may be needed to help students obtain sustained development of grammatical complexity. Fluency, measured by the use of transitional words, indicated that while students could connect ideas more smoothly, they may still need more practice to achieve smoother flow and cohesion in their EFL writing [89].

6.5. Significance of Findings

The significant improvements across all four dimensions of writing proficiency underscore the effects of mind mapping as a scaffolding tool in EFL writing instruction. These results suggest that mind mapping supports idea generation and organization and enhances the overall quality of writing by addressing multiple aspects of language proficiency simultaneously [65,66]. The combination of individual mind mapping, peer collaboration, and teacher feedback creates a supportive learning environment that encourages continuous improvement and refinement of writing skills [36,50,73]. This approach aligns with sociocultural theories of learning, which emphasize the importance of social interaction and scaffolding in cognitive development [11].

Overall, the findings suggest that mind mapping can be a powerful tool for addressing the specific challenges faced by adolescent EFL learners. The ability to visually organize ideas and see the connections between them can help mitigate the cognitive demands of writing in a foreign language, making the writing process more manageable and less intimidating for EFL students [22,29,70]. This is particularly important for adolescent learners, who are at a critical stage in their academic development and may experience unique challenges in mastering a new language [15].

6.6. Implications

The findings from this study have several practical implications for EFL teachers and curriculum designers. Regular incorporation of mind mapping into writing instruction is recommended, as it helps students organize their ideas, plan their writing, and enhance various aspects of their writing proficiency. Moreover, fostering collaborative learning through peer discussions and feedback is crucial for improving students’ English writing skills. Teachers should create opportunities for peer interaction and mutual support, which were instrumental in this study. Providing iterative feedback is also essential; therefore, teachers should implement feedback mechanisms that allow students to receive and incorporate feedback at multiple stages of the writing process. Additionally, scaffolding techniques should be tailored to meet the specific needs and developmental stages of learners, providing structured support that gradually transitions to independent writing for middle-school EFL students. Enhancing EFL teacher training is another critical implication. Teachers need adequate and thorough training in the use of mind mapping and other scaffolding tools. Professional development programs should focus on how to effectively implement these tools in the classroom. Finally, integrating technology into writing instruction could offer additional benefits. Digital mind mapping tools might provide ease of use, accessibility, and the ability to share and collaborate online.

6.7. Limitations and Future Research

While the results are promising, this study acknowledges several limitations. First, the study was conducted with a relatively small sample of students from a single school in China, which potentially limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should include larger, more diverse samples to broaden generalizability. Second, the pre-test–post-test design used in this study allowed us to capture meaningful changes in participants’ use of mind mapping tools over the course of the intervention, offering preliminary data on its effectiveness. This design is particularly useful in early-stage research, where initial data on the effects of the intervention are vital. However, the absence of a control group limits our ability to attribute these changes to the intervention alone, as other factors, such as maturation or external influences, may have contributed. Future research should include a comparison group to strengthen the study design and enable more robust causal inferences. Third, the study focused on narrative writing tasks, which may constrain the applicability of the findings to other writing genres. Exploring the effectiveness of mind mapping in genres, such as expository or argumentative writing, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits. Furthermore, this study primarily used quantitative measures to assess the effects of scaffolded writing instruction with mind mapping. Future research could benefit from qualitatively analyzing the association between students’ mind maps and their final written compositions. Finally, the two-month duration of the intervention suggests a need for longitudinal studies to examine the long-term effects of scaffolded writing instruction with mind mapping over time.

7. Conclusions

The present study provides insights into the effectiveness of scaffolded writing instruction with mind mapping on improving English narrative writing skills among Chinese middle-school students learning English as a foreign language. The approach significantly improved various facets of adolescent students’ English writing proficiency, including lexical complexity, grammatical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. By integrating mind mapping within structured, scaffolded writing instruction, the study effectively helped students with the challenges commonly associated with EFL writing, fostering a more dynamic and effective learning environment. As educational paradigms continue to evolve toward more interactive approaches, these innovative strategies are likely to play a crucial role in advancing writing instruction, particularly in EFL contexts [96].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.F. and J.E.R.; Methodology, X.F.; Validation, X.F.; Formal analysis, X.F.; Data curation, X.F.; Writing–original draft, X.F.; Writing–review and editing, J.E.R. and X.F.; Visualization, X.F.; Supervision, J.E.R.; Project administration, X.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval for the study was not required in accordance with local and national legislation.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the teacher and all the students who participated in this study. Special thanks to my former advisor from my master’s program, whose support was instrumental in the implementation of the program, and to my current advisor, whose guidance and support greatly contributed to the development of this manuscript. Additionally, Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com, accessed on 24 April 2024) and OpenAI ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/chat) were used solely for language enhancement and support. We take full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the content in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Diagram for scaffolded instruction in writing instruction. (Source: [71]).

Figure 2. Sample mind map worksheet for students (Bubble map).

Figure 3. Pre-test prompt before intervention.

Figure 4. Post-test prompt after intervention.

Figure 5. Eight types of mind map introduced in the first two sessions [83].

Figure 6. Bar graph of the mean of writing lexical complexity in pre-test and post-test.

Figure 7. Bar graph of the mean of writing grammatical complexity in pre-test and post-test.

Figure 8. Bar graph of the mean of writing accuracy in pre-test and post-test.

Figure 9. Bar graph of the mean of writing fluency in pre-test and post-test.

Table 1

Eight-day writing lesson topics and corresponding prompts.

Lesson	Writing Topics	Writing Prompts
1	Description of your best friend	(1) Who is your best friend? (2) What does he/she look like? (3) What’s his/her personality like? (4) Why do you like him/her?
2	Write a travel diary	(1) Where did you go? (2) How was the weather? (3) What did you do during your trip? (4) How did you feel about the trip?
3	Report of good/bad habits	(1) Do you have some good/bad habits? (2) What are they? (3) How often do you do them?
4	Introduce your hometown	(1) Do you like your hometown? (2) Would you please introduce your hometown briefly? (3) What are the best places/things in your hometown? (e.g., best middle schools, beautiful parks…)
5	Write a movie review	(1) What kind of movie do you like? (2) What is your favorite movie? (3) Why is this movie your favorite one?
6	Talk about future intentions	(1) What do you want to be when you grow up? (2) How are you going to do that? (3) Where are you going to work?
7	Write a recipe for your favorite food	(1) What is your favorite food? (2) Why do you like it? (3) Do you know how to cook one of your favorite foods?
8	Make/accept/decline an invitation	(1) Can you come to my birthday party? (2) How to make an invitation? (3) How should people reply to an invitation and when?

Table 2

Scaffolded writing instruction lesson sequence and description.

Sequence	Description
1.	Enter the situation: The teacher introduced the topic of writing (e.g., describing one of their best friends) and got students ready for the following writing activities.
2.	Set up scaffolding: Students brainstormed the topic, content, and structure using a mind mapping worksheet.
3.	Independent exploration: Students worked on their mind mapping independently.
4.	Cooperative learning: Students worked with their partners in pairs to enrich or expand their mind mapping through discussion, and then they started drafting.
5.	Teacher review and evaluation: Students submitted their drafts for teacher review and revised their compositions when the teacher returned their writing compositions.

Table 3

Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test measures.

	Pre-Test (n = 55)			Post-test (n = 55)			t	p Value	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range
Lexical complexity	0.55	0.06	0.42−0.67	0.65	0.08	0.49−0.95	9.80	<0.001	0.94
Grammatical complexity	5.81	0.79	3.89−7.14	6.50	0.96	4.10−8.50	5.23	<0.001	0.54
Accuracy	0.08	0.06	0.03−0.28	0.12	0.09	0.01−0.36	3.16	<0.002	0.40
Fluency	0.23	0.08	0.13−0.43	0.34	0.13	0.18−0.78	6.51	<0.001	0.79

References

1. Grabe, W.; Kaplan, R.B. Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.

2. Levy, C.M.; Ransdell, S. The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1996; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203811122]

3. Kim, Y.-S.G.; Graham, S. Expanding the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (DIEW): Reading–writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition. J. Educ. Psychol.; 2022; 114, pp. 215-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000564]

4. MacArthur, C.A.; Graham, S. Writing research from a cognitive perspective. Handbook of Writing Research; 2nd ed. MacArthur, C.A.; Graham, S.; Fitzgerald, J. The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 24-40.

5. Olive, T.; Kellogg, R.T. Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composition. Mem. Cogn.; 2002; 30, pp. 594-600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194960]

6. Torrance, M.; Jeffery, G.C. The Cognitive Demands of Writing: Processing Capacity and Working Memory Effects in Text Production; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; Volume 6, pp. 27-40.

7. Ng, C.H.; Cheung, Y.L. Mediation in a socio-cognitive approach to writing for elementary students: Instructional scaffolding. Educ. Sci.; 2018; 8, 92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030092]

8. Padmadewi, N.N.; Artini, L.P. Using scaffolding strategies in teaching writing for improving student literacy in primary school. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovation in Education (ICoIE 2018); Bali, Indonesia, 29–30 September 2018; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 156-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/icoie-18.2019.36]

9. Tai, H.C.; Chen, C.M.; Tsai, Y.H.; Lee, B.O.; Dewi, Y.S. Is instructional scaffolding a better strategy for teaching writing to EFL learners? A functional MRI study in healthy young adults. Brain Sci.; 2021; 11, 1378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111378]

10. Wu, S.H.; Alrabah, S. Instructional scaffolding strategies to support the L2 writing of EFL college students in Kuwait. Engl. Lang. Teach.; 2023; 16, 53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n5p53]

11. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.

12. Walqui, A. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling.; 2006; 9, pp. 159-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639]

13. Hwang, W.Y.; Chen, H.S.; Shadiev, R.; Huang, R.Y.M.; Chen, C.Y. Improving English as a foreign language writing in elementary schools using mobile devices in familiar situational contexts. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn.; 2014; 27, pp. 359-378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.733711]

14. Woo, M.; Chu, S.; Ho, A.; Li, X. Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students’ collaborative writing. J. Educ. Technol. Soc.; 2011; 14, pp. 43-54.

15. Short, D.; Fitzsimmons, S. Double the Work: Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring Language and Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners; Alliance for Excellent Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

16. Wangmo, K. The Use of Mind Mapping Technique to Enhance Descriptive Writing Skills of Grade four Bhutanese Students. Ph.D. Dissertation; Rangsit University: Pathumthani, Thailand, 2018.

17. Al-Zyoud, A.A.; Al Jamal, D.; Baniabdelrahman, A. Mind mapping and student’ writing performance. Arab. World Engl. J.; 2017; 8, pp. 280-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no4.19]

18. Shah, N.H.; Naqeeb, H. Does mind mapping technique improve cohesion and coherence in composition writing? An experimental study. Pak. J. Educ.; 2020; 37, pp. 31-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30971/pje.v37i2.952]

19. Tarin, S.; Yawiloeng, R. Learning to write through mind mapping techniques in an EFL writing classroom. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud.; 2023; 13, pp. 2490-2499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1310.07]

20. Yunus, M.M.; Chien, C.H. The use of mind mapping strategy in Malaysian university English test (MUET) Writing. Creat. Educ.; 2016; 7, pp. 619-626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.74064]

21. Olmanson, J.; Kennett, K.; Magnifico, A.; McCarthey, S.; Searsmith, D.; Cope, B.; Kalantzis, M. Visualizing revision: Leveraging student-generated between-draft diagramming data in support of academic writing development. Technol. Knowl. Learn.; 2016; 21, pp. 99-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9265-5]

22. Fu, Q.K.; Lin, C.J.; Hwang, G.J.; Zhang, L. Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Comput. Educ.; 2019; 137, pp. 59-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005]

23. Saed, H.A.; Al-Omari, H.A. The effectiveness of a proposed program based on a mind mapping strategy in developing the writing achievement of eleventh grade EFL students in Jordan and their attitudes towards writing. J. Educ. Pract.; 2014; 5, pp. 88-110.

24. Uysal, H.; Sidekli, S. Developing story writing skills with fourth grade students’ mind mapping method. Egitim Bilim; 2020; 45, 204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8848]

25. Vijayavalsalan, B. Mind mapping as a strategy for enhancing essay writing skills. New Educ. Rev.; 2016; 45, pp. 137-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.45.3.11]

26. Ruiz-Funes, M. Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. J. Second Lang. Writ.; 2015; 28, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001]

27. Al Naqbi, S. The Use of Mind Mapping to Develop Writing Skills in UAE Schools. Educ. Bus. Soc. Contemp. Middle East. Issues; 2011; 4, pp. 120-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17537981111143855]

28. Teng, M.F.; Zhang, L.J. Development of children’s metacognitive knowledge, reading, and writing in English as a foreign language: Evidence from longitudinal data using multilevel models. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.; 2021; 91, pp. 1202-1230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12413]

29. Yang, Y.F. Automatic scaffolding and measurement of concept mapping for EFL students to write summaries. J. Educ. Technol. Soc.; 2015; 18, pp. 273-286.

30. Lee, I. EFL writing in schools. Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing; Manchón, R.M.; Matsuda, P.K. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany, Boston, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 113-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-008]

31. Zwiers, J. Building Academic Language: Essential Practices for Content Classrooms, Grades 5–12; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.

32. Graham, S.; Perin, D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. J. Educ. Psychol.; 2007; 99, pp. 445-476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445]

33. Nik, Y.A.; Hamzah, A.; Rafidee, H. A comparative study on the factors affecting the writing performance among Bachelor students. Int. J. Educ. Res. Technol.; 2010; 1, pp. 54-59.

34. Reiser, B.J.; Tabak, I. Scaffolding. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences; 2nd ed. Sawyer, R.K. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 44-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.005]

35. Hammond, J. Scaffolding: A Focus on Teaching and Learning in Literacy Education; Primary English Teaching Association: Newtown, Australia, 2001.

36. Gibbons, P. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2002.

37. Gibson, S.A. An effective framework for primary-grade guided writing instruction. Read. Teach.; 2008; 62, pp. 324-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.4.5]

38. Shintani, N. The roles of explicit instruction and guided practice in the proceduralization of a complex grammatical structure. Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling Methodological Demands and Pedagogical Applicability; Ed. Nassaji, H.; Fotos, S. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 83-106.

39. Benko, S.L. Scaffolding: An ongoing process to support adolescent writing development. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit.; 2012; 56, pp. 291-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00142]

40. Boggs, J.A. Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. J. Second Lang. Writ.; 2019; 46, 100671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671]

41. Hyland, K.; Hyland, F. Feedback on second language students’ writing. Lang. Teach.; 2006; 39, pp. 83-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399]

42. Faraj, A.K.A. Scaffolding EFL students’ writing through the writing process approach. J. Educ. Pract.; 2015; 6, pp. 131-141.

43. Boyle, J.R.; Hindman, A.H. Scaffolding the persuasive writing of middle school students. Middle Grades Res. J.; 2015; 10, pp. 43-60.

44. Troia, G.A.; Graham, S. The consultant’s corner: Effective writing instruction across the grades: What every educational consultant should know. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult.; 2003; 14, pp. 75-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1401_04]

45. De La Paz, S.; Graham, S. Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. J. Educ. Psychol.; 2002; 94, pp. 687-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687]

46. Jagaiah, T.; Howard, D.; Olinghouse, N. Writer’s checklist: A procedural support for struggling writers. Read. Teach.; 2019; 73, pp. 103-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1802]

47. Taylor, L.A. Scaffolding literacy learning through talk: Stance as a pedagogical tool. Read. Teach.; 2021; 74, pp. 375-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1958]

48. Heinert, J. Peer critique as a signature pedagogy in writing studies. Arts Humanit. High. Educ.; 2017; 16, pp. 293-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474022216652767]

49. Liu, J.; Edwards, J.G.H. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2018.

50. Riazi, M.; Rezaii, M. Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students’ writing improvement. Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL (CLESOL 2010); Auckland, New Zealand, 30 September–3 October 2010; TESOLANZ: Wellington, New Zealand, 2011; pp. 55-63.

51. Pribadi, B.A.; Susilana, R. The use of mind mapping approach to facilitate students’ distance learning in writing modular based on printed learning materials. Eur. J. Educ. Res.; 2020; 10, pp. 907-917. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.2.907]

52. Sabarun, S.; Muslimah, A.H.; Muhanif, S.; Elhawwa, T. The effect of flow mind map on writing accuracy and learning motivation at Islamic higher education. Lang. Circ. J. Lang. Lit.; 2021; 16, pp. 146-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15294/lc.v16i1.30551]

53. Vejayan, L.; Yunus, M.M. Application of digital mind mapping (MINDOMO) in improving weak students’ narrative writing performance. Creat. Educ.; 2022; 13, pp. 2730-2743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.138172]

54. Bataineh, R.F.; Obeiah, S.F. The effect of scaffolding and portfolio assessment on Jordanian EFL learners’ writing. Indones. J. Appl. Linguist.; 2016; 6, pp. 12-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i1.2643]

55. Lhadon, L.; Wangmo, C. Improving essay writing skills through scaffolding instructions in grade six Bhutanese students. Rangsit J. Educ. Stud.; 2022; 9, pp. 1-14.

56. Bingham, G.E.; Gerde, H.K.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, X.Y. Supporting the writing development of emergent bilingual children: Universal and language-specific approaches. Read. Teach.; 2023; 76, pp. 390-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2166]

57. Leong, D.J. Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy; 1998; 3, 1.

58. Stetson-Tiligadas, S.M. Building up to collaboration: Evidence on using wikis to scaffold academic writing. J. Acad. Writ.; 2016; 6, pp. 134-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v6i1.288]

59. Hassanzadeh, M.; Saffari, E.; Rezaei, S. The impact of computer-aided concept mapping on EFL learners’ lexical diversity: A process writing experiment. ReCALL; 2021; 33, pp. 214-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095834402100001X]

60. Shakoori, M.; Kadivar, P.; Sarami, R. The effect of concept mapping strategy as a graphical tool in writing achievement among EFL learners. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol.; 2017; 7, pp. 357-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.5.894]

61. Chandler, J. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. J. Second Lang. Writ.; 2003; 12, pp. 267-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9]

62. Hartshorn, K.J.; Evans, N.W.; Merrill, P.F.; Sudweeks, R.R.; Strong-Krause, D.; Anderson, N.J. Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Q.; 2010; 44, pp. 84-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781]

63. Hier, B.O.; Eckert, T.L. Evaluating elementary-aged students’ abilities to generalize and maintain fluency gains of a performance feedback writing intervention. Sch. Psychol. Q.; 2014; 29, 488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000040]

64. Buzan, T.; Buzan, B. The Mind Map Book; Pearson Education: Harlow, UK, 2006.

65. Budd, J.W. Mind maps as classroom exercises. J. Econ. Educ.; 2004; 35, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.35.1.35-46]

66. Leeds, A.J.; Kudrowitz, B.; Kwon, J. Mapping associations: Exploring divergent thinking through mind mapping. Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov.; 2019; 7, pp. 16-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1463178]

67. Dhindsa, H.S.; Anderson, R.O. Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach and the quality of students’ cognitive structures. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.; 2011; 20, pp. 186-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9245-4]

68. Kim, S.-Y.; Kim, M.-R. Kolb’s learning styles and educational outcome: Using digital mind map as a study tool in elementary English class. Int. J. Educ. Media Technol.; 2012; 6, pp. 4-13.

69. Zheng, X.; Johnson, T.E.; Zhou, C. A pilot study examining the impact of collaborative mind mapping strategy in a flipped classroom: Learning achievement, self-efficacy, motivation, and students’ acceptance. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2020; 68, pp. 3527-3545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09868-0]

70. Putra, P.P. The use of mind mapping strategy in the teaching of writing at SMAN 3 Bengkulu, Indonesia. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci.; 2012; 2, pp. 60-68.

71. Zhao, J. A research study on cognitive structure construction applying mind mapping in the construction of cognitive structures: A case study based on basic college English practice courses in universities. Zhongguo Dianhua Jiaoyu; 2014; 329, pp. 121-126.

72. Khatib, M.; Meihami, H. Languaging and writing skill: The effect of collaborative writing on EFL students’ writing performance. Adv. Lang. Lit. Stud.; 2015; 6, pp. 203-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.203]

73. Storch, N. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. J. Second Lang. Writ.; 2005; 14, pp. 153-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002]

74. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Pract.; 1999; 38, pp. 67-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834]

75. Housen, A.; Kuiken, F.; Vedder, I. Complexity, accuracy and fluency. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA; John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou]

76. Larsen-Freeman, D. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Appl. Linguist.; 2006; 27, pp. 590-619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029]

77. Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998.

78. Laufer, B.; Nation, P. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Appl. Linguist.; 1995; 16, pp. 307-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307]

79. Read, J.A. Assessing Vocabulary; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.

80. Šišková, Z. Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. Lang. Stud. Work. Pap.; 2012; 4, pp. 26-36.

81. Wolfe-Quintero, K.E.; Inagaki, S.; Kim, H.Y. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, & Complexity; University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1998.

82. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. National Language Standard: China’s Standards of English Language Ability. 2018; Available online: https://cse.neea.edu.cn/res/ceedu/1811/6bdc26c323d188948fca8048833f151a.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2024).

83. Hyerle, D. Thinking Maps: Tools for Learning; Innovative Learning Group: Troy, MI, USA, 1996.

84. Ellis, R.; Barkhuizen, G. Analyzing Learner Language; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005.

85. Cumming, A.H.; Berwick, R. Validation in Language Testing; Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK, 1996; Volume 2.

86. Anthony, L. AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. Proceedings of the IPCC 2005 International Professional Communication Conference; Limerick, Ireland, 10–13 July 2005; pp. 729-737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2005.1494244]

87. Hunt, K.W. A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. Engl. J.; 1965; 54, pp. 300-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.58680/ej196523480]

88. Linnarud, M. Lexis in Composition: A Performance Analysis of Swedish Learners’ Written English; CWK Gleerup: Malmö, Sweden, 1986.

89. Crossley, S.; McNamara, D. Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society; Cognitive Science Society; Austin, TX, USA, 11–14 August 2010; Volume 32, Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n5908qx (accessed on 7 October 2024).

90. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988.

91. Yoon, H.J. Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System; 2017; 66, pp. 130-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007]

92. Bloom, B.S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain; Longmans: London, UK, 1956.

93. Tai, H.C.; Lin, W.C.; Yang, S.C. Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. J. Educ. Comput. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 284-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597490]

94. Cope, B.; Kalantzis, M.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Bagley, E. Science in writing: Learning scientific argument in principle and practice. E-Learn. Digit. Media; 2013; 10, pp. 420-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.4.420]

95. Buzan, T. Mind Map Mastery: The Complete Guide to Learning and Using the Most Powerful Thinking Tool in the Universe; Watkins Media Limited: London, UK, 2018.

96. Hyland, K.; Wong, L.L. Innovation and Change in English Language Education; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013.