Charting Cultural Fluency: Leveraging Digital Story Maps for Language Proficiency in ESP Education

These areas were analysed in terms of the written geo stories produced in the final projects completed by both groups- The oral presentations were recorded and transcribed, and the language in them was then coded for the above 3 areas (sign interpretation, mapmaking terminology and language used and cultural considerations), enumerated and analysed with the statistical package SPSS.

An evaluation sheet (Authors) was created to analyse the output produced in the second phase (see Annex 2), included four main dimensions (map sections, signs interpretation, language and culture), subdivided into a set of 16 indicators, whose completion were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5 points, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest. Validity was obtained by requesting commentary and suggestions from three experts in the field of geomatics, design and cultural studies. It was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha to test internal consistency of items. The calculation performed concluded with a 0.70 alpha, that is 0.10 points above the 0.6 standard. The reliability of the opinions and beliefs questionnaire can be consequently considered appropriate.

Students’ final presentations were compared and scored using their final grades on the oral and written outputs. The final projects were evaluated using a 1 to 10 grading scale, in which 1 is the lowest, 10 the maximum grade and 5 is the minimum pass mark. The use of this scale is motivated by the familiarization that students have with grades ranging between these values, since they are used to this measurement in exams and academic activities in all subjects at the university. Raw data is provided by researchers in the tables of content used for task completion (see Annex 1).

3.6. Hypotheses and statistical analysis

To reach our objective aimed at measuring the effectiveness of using a web-based mapping platform to create geocoded narratives and foster the development of cultural and communication skills in a foreign language, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: In the dimension “linguistic acquisition on global issues in engineering”, there is a significant difference between the mean score obtained by the experimental group and the mean score obtained by the control group through a data assessment table (XE ≠ XC).

Hypothesis 2: In the dimension “cultural awareness about global issues regarding world regions” there is a significant difference between the mean score obtained by experimental group (XE) and the mean score obtained by the control group (XC) (XE ≠ XC).

Hypothesis 3: In the dimension “creation of map and geographic stories (language, culture and map symbolism) through digital geocoded narratives versus written report and oral presentation on a pre-existing map in an ESP course”, there is a significant difference between the mean score obtained by experimental group and the mean score obtained by control group (XE ≠ XC) (XE ≠ XC).

To contrast the hypotheses, we carried out an analysis of difference between means, which are the means of control group (students who did not make their own maps) versus experimental group (students who did make their own maps using the experiential cycles of Kolb) for the variables under study, by performing the t-Student test for independent samples. Before performing this test, we checked the normality of distributions in both groups. Normality of the scores was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The level was set at 0.05 for all analyses.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To cover the research hypotheses and examine the results of both groups, we analysed the differences between the three hypotheses by conducting a Student’s t test for two independent samples. According to the Levene test for equality of variances, the P-value associated with an F contrast statistic should be higher than 0.05 for the dimensions analysed at a 0.05 level of significance, three in this case, and, therefore, we cannot reject the hypotheses of equal variances for such dimensions. Considering this, tables 2 and 3 show the results obtained in the student’s t-tests.

4.1. Hypothesis 1

According to the t-test (table 2), in the dimension, “linguistic acquisition on current and emerging global issues in engineering” there is a significant difference between the mean score obtained by the experimental group and the results obtained by the control group (p≤0.05). That is, the results support hypothesis 1, meaning that students who were exposed to the experiential methodology instruction for the acquisition of linguistic and semiotic conceptualization in map making and completed the geocoded narrative with a digital GIS software showed a higher degree of specific vocabulary, GIS related terminology and concepts, noun phrases (global warming, greenhouse effect, layer, annotation, codes, marginal notes, icons, indexes, spatial query, etc.) than those simply describing a pre-existing map after the previous sessions of class instructions. Students’ linguistic skills, including specific vocabulary, improved after creating digital stories (Yuksel et al., 2011).

In table 3, we show the overall contrast of means between control and experimental groups.

As we can see, there exist significant differences in mean values between the two groups of students (6.16 versus 7.68, control and experimental group respectively). The results could imply that map-making enhances the development of linguistic skills for EFL students (specific vocabulary and terminology), and also the acquisition of productive skills such as writing (sources notes, titles, labels, descriptions, etc.), speaking (discussion, collaborative work group to create the map, map presentation, etc.) and mediation (interpretation and description of map symbology when reading or listening or when interacting with others for map creation collaboratively). Receptive skills (reading and listening), in phase 1 from in class instructions are also practiced through multimedia inputs. These results echo other studies undertaken with DST in EFL classrooms (Leschenko et al., 2017; Reyes et al., 2012).

4.2. Hypothesis 2

In the dimension “Cultural awareness about global issues regarding world regions”, there is a significant difference between the mean score obtained by experimental group and the mean score obtained by control group (XE ≠ XC)”, table 4 shows that at a 0.05 level of significance the t test doesn’t support hypothesis 2 (p>0.05), that is, there is no significant difference in the cultural awareness both groups show about world region disparities.

We focused this line of research on gaining insights into how students perceived and applied cultural differences in terms of colours, shape, lines, etc. when analysing and creating thematic maps on the same topic: current and emerging global issues (e.g., Climate change, ecological collapse, overpopulation, migration flows, etc.). Students’ understanding of differences in terms of the production of cultural characteristics of signs (conceptual and perceptual features of signs); sign process productions, reception and contextual factors, etc., is indicative of their cultural awareness at a basic level. Culture is a crucial issue and our results could be partly explained by the standardised geographical data and geo-media we are exposed to. Cultural factors are often under-appreciated by students who, in an ever-closer and digitalized world, often wrongly assume that societies are more universal than they are (Fielden & Rico, 2021). Global understanding is key to engineering since the prosperity of each region depends on the evolution of others and their interdependence for shared resources, etc., so that this should be further investigated.

However, there are some differences in the mean values between both groups (6.10 versus 6.55 in the case of the experimental group). In this sense, and though the number of culture conceptualizations generated by each group suggested no significant differences, there is a slightly better percentage for the experimental group, which may indicate that creating maps was more helpful to internalizing the role of culture in map-making, though clearly more research must be done since this was a non-significant difference.

In Table 5, we show the overall contrast of means between control and experimental groups (6.10 versus 6.55 respectively).

The results could be partly derived from a lack in the semiotic decodification of sign types (degrees of iconicity, indexicality and symbology) according to culture differences. Moreover, as thematic map creators are mainly concerned with making the map look as real as possible, accuracy in the communication of data, its patterns and relations is crucial.

4.3. Hypothesis 3

In the dimension “Creation of map and geographic stories (language, culture and map symbolism) through self-made geocoded narratives versus written report and oral presentation with genially on a pre-existing map in an ESP courses”, there is a noticeable difference between the mean score obtained by the experimental group and the results obtained by the control group.

From Table 6, the p value associated with a t-Student test is lower than 0.05 for this hypothesis, which means that results support the third hypothesis, that is, students who undertake the creation of a digital GIS story in their learning are evaluated more positively, getting higher scores than those who describe a pre-existing map of their choice (oral presentation and written report).

There also exist significant differences in mean values between both groups of students (6. 06 versus 7.55 in the case of the experimental group, scores in a grading scale ranging from 0 to 10 points, with a minimum pass mark of 5 to achieve the minimum acceptance level of competence). Mean results are shown in Table 7 below.

This higher evaluation may have firstly to do with the understanding of concepts, the interpretation of map symbology (signs and objects) and the more frequent and accurate use of key terminology and concepts, as seen in the results for this hypothesis. The final process of learning by doing could develop a better understanding of spatial thinking, the exploration and interpretation of the world issues under study, which was also seen in other FL contexts using digital storytelling projects where students’ linguistic skills improved (Leschenko et al.,2017; Reyes et al.,2012). Moreover, the semiotic decodification of map symbology and the multimedia artifacts of the mapping platform throughout its layers have influenced the results.

5. CONCLUSION

The results of this study point toward the importance that the semiotic instruction and the creation or production phase, the culmination of Kolb’s experiential cycle for learning, may have for developing linguistic and intercultural skills for EFL, and concretely ESP, students. Students who created a map here used more specific vocabulary and terminology. They also showed an acquisition of more conceptual knowledge in terms of map interpretation from the semiotic approach, than students who simply presented a pre-existing map. This echoes students’ vocabulary gains in Yuksel et al. (2011) and could be in part due to the greater use of productive skills in the creation phase, such as writing (sources notes, titles, labels, descriptions, etc.), speaking (discussion, collaborative work group to create the map, map presentation, etc.) and mediation (interpretation and description of map symbology when reading or listening or when interacting with others for map creation collaboratively, or it could be due to the simple fact that creation implies greater investment on the part of the learner, engaging him or her in deeper levels of critical thinking that are necessary for fabricating a product as was done in students maps here. To sum up, the act of creation, an active process, results in more profound learning than mere observation and analysis. Experiential learning provides opportunities for immersive and hands-on sessions through work experience, discussion and problem solving.

Likewise, as the world is shrinking thanks to online communities, thematic symbolism could be more culturally globalized, making it more difficult to perceive and learn about cultural differences in class sessions. Aspects such as colour, shapes, contour lines, building types, etc., that may have a variety of associations within a particular culture, have, to some extent, blurred their distinctions in the globalised geo open systems of well-known online maps at our disposal. This could partly explain the results obtained in the second hypothesis. However, given the important role of cultural symbolism, in language and cartography, the slightly better percentage for the experimental group, though not significant may be a reason for optimism, since it may point to the production map-creation phase as one that aids internalization of some of these cultural points.

The global dimension of hypothesis 3 in terms of the incidence of digital map making in the creation of successful geographical storytelling for language, culture and semiotic acquisition in ESP course can have been greatly determined by the second phase of our class methodology (learning by doing). The development of spatial thinking carried out by the experimental group could have enhanced the understanding of concepts, the interpretation of map symbology (signs and objects) and the linguistic acquisition on this topic, which was also seen in other FL contexts using digital storytelling projects where students’ linguistic skills improved (Leschenko et al., 2017; Reyes et al., 2012). Making sense of their previous knowledge and in class experiences seems to have engaged students in hands-on, creative modes of learning.

The study also shows that the semiotic approach and the introduction of the multimedia artifacts of web-based mapping platforms have provided students with the ability to create geocoded narratives through visual representations and foster the development of cultural, mediation and communication skills in a foreign language.

In short, geo maps offer a comprehensive and engaging platform for language and culture learning that goes beyond the limitations of printed maps. They facilitate interactive, real-time, and personalized learning experiences, aligning more closely with the dynamic and multifaceted nature of language and culture education. As a result, we conclude with the following pedagogical considerations for future ESP classes: