Students who have particular difficulty in mathematics are a growing concern for educators. Graphic organizers have been shown to improve reading comprehension and may be applied to upper level secondary mathematics content. In two systematic replications, one randomly assigned group was taught to solve systems of linear equations through direct instruction and strategy instruction. The other group was taught with the same methods with the addition of a graphic organizer. Students who received instruction with the graphic organizers outperformed those who received instruction without the organizers. They also better understood the related concepts as measured by immediate posttests in both replications. The difference in understanding concepts was maintained on a 2–3 week posttest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvermannD. E., & SwaffordJ. (1989). Do content area strategies have a research base?Journal of Reading, 32, 388–394.
2.
BleyN. S., & ThorntonC. A. (1995). Teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities (3rd ed.). Austin, TX : Pro–Ed.
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
4.
DunstonP. J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 57–65.
5.
GearyD. C. (2000). Mathematical disorders: An overview for educators. Perspectives, 26, 6–9.
6.
GearyD. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem–solving differences and cognitive deficits. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK. R., & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199–212). New York : Guilford.
7.
HarrisC. A., MillerS. P., & MercerC. D. (1995). Teaching initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 180–195.
8.
HuckS. W., & CormierW. H. (1996). Reading statistics and research (2nd ed.). New York : Harper Collins.
9.
IvesB. (2003). Effect size use in studies of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 490–504.
10.
IvesB., & HoyC. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher–level secondary mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 36–51.
11.
JitendraA. K., DiPipiC. M., & Perron–JonesN. (2002). An exploratory study of schema–based word–problem–solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38.
12.
JitendraA. K., GriffinC. C., McGoeyK., GardillC. M., BhatP., & RileyT. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345–355.
13.
JitendraA. K., & HoffK. (1996). The effects of schema–based instruction on the mathematical word–problem–solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 422–431.
14.
JitendraA. K., HoffK., & BeckM. M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema–based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50–64.
15.
JordanN. C., HanichL. B., & KaplanD. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850.
16.
MacciniP., & RuhlK. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
17.
MarzolaE. S. (1987). Using manipulatives in math instruction. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 3, 9–20.
18.
MillerS. P., & MercerC. D. (1993). Using data to learn about concrete–semiconcrete–abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.
19.
MillerS. P., MercerC. D., & DillonA. S. (1992). CSA: Acquiring and retaining math skills. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 105–110.
20.
MooreD. W., & ReadanceJ. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–17.
21.
MosesR. P., & CobbC. E.Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston : Beacon Press.
22.
PetersonS. K., MercerC. D., & O'SheaL. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.
23.
RiceG. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 15, 39–67.
24.
RiveraD. P. (1998). Mathematics education and students with learning disabilities: Introduction. In RiveraD. P. (Ed.), Mathematics education for students with learning disabilities (pp. 1–31). Austin, TX : Pro–Ed.
25.
RobinsonD. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105.
26.
SwaffordJ., & AlvermannD. E. (1989). Postsecondary research base for content strategies. Journal of Reading, 33, 164–169.
27.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. New York : Guilford.
28.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. New York : Guilford.
29.
ThompsonB. (1993). The use of statistical significance tests in research: Bootstrap and other alternatives. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 361–377.
WestT. G. (2000). Math for dummies. Perspectives, 26, 25.
32.
WitzelB. S., MercerC. D., & MillerD. M. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121–131.
