A Meta–Analytic Review of Graphic Organizers and Science Instruction for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Implications for the Intermediate and Secondary Science Classroom
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2011
A Meta–Analytic Review of Graphic Organizers and Science Instruction for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Implications for the Intermediate and Secondary Science Classroom
This article presents a meta–analysis of experimental and quasi–experimental studies in which intermediate and secondary students with learning disabilities were taught science content through the use of graphic organizers (GOs). Following an exhaustive search for studies meeting specified selection criteria, 23 standardized mean effect sizes were extracted from six articles involving 271 participants in grades 6 through 12. Findings included that, across immediate posttest and maintenance conditions, the use of GOs was associated with increased vocabulary knowledge and factual comprehension measured by researcher–generated multiple–choice tests in science. Conclusions, implications for future research, and practical recommendations are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherA. L., & HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York : Guilford.
2.
AusubelD. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York : Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
3.
*BosC. S., & AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior–high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
4.
*BosC. S., & AndersP. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 39, 225–238.
5.
BosC. S., & VaughnS. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (5th ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BurnsM. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–173.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
8.
*DarchC., & EavesR. (1986). Visual displays to increase comprehension of high school learning–disabled students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 309–318.
9.
*DarchC., & GerstenR. (1986). Direction–setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.
10.
DexterD. D. (2010). Graphic organizers and their effectiveness for students with learning disabilities. Thalamus, 26, 51–67.
11.
DexterD. D., & HughesC. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 51–72.
12.
FletcherJ. M., LyonG. R., FuchsL. S., & BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York : Guilford.
13.
GajriaM., JitendraA. K., SoodS., & SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
14.
GerstenR., BakerS., & LloydJ. W. (2000). Designing high–quality research in special education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 2–18.
15.
*GriffinC. C., SimmonsD. C., & Kame'enuiE. J. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizers instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355–376.
16.
GuastelloE. F., BeasleyT. M., & SinatraR. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low–achieving inner–city seventh graders: RASE TL & LD. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/236287390?accountid=13158.
17.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
18.
HedgesL. V., & OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta–analysis. New York : Academic Press.
19.
HedgesL. V., ShymanskyJ. A., & WoodworthG. (1989). A practical guide to modern methods of meta–analysis. Washington, DC : National Science Teachers Association.
20.
HortonS. V., LovittT. C., & BergerudD. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12.
21.
HughesC. A., MacciniP., & GagnonJ. C. (2003). Interventions that positively impact the performance of students with learning disabilities in secondary general education classes. Learning Disabilities, 12, 101–111.
22.
HunterJ. E., & SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta–analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
23.
KimA., VaughnS., WanzekJ., & WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
24.
LipseyM. W., & WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. The American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1201.
25.
LipseyM. W., & WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta–analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
26.
LovittT., RudsitJ., JenkinsJ., PiousC., & BenedettiD. (1986). Adapting science materials for regular and learning disabled seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 31–39.
27.
LindaH. M., & LauraR. H. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and consideration for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 214–222.
28.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., BoonR., & CarterK. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 130–138.
29.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., NorlandJ. J., BerkeleyS., McDuffieK., TornquistE. H., . (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high–stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030101
30.
MayerR. E. (1979). Can advanced organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.
31.
MinskoffE., & AllsoppD. (2003). Academic success strategies for adolescents with learning disabilities and ADHD. Baltimore : Brookes Publishing.
32.
NesbitJ. C., & AdesopeO. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta–analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
33.
OrwinR. G. (1983). A fail–safe N for effect size in meta–analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159.
34.
*ReyesE. I., GallegoM. A., DuranG. Z., & ScanlonD. J. (1989). Integration of internal concepts and external factors: Extending the knowledge of learning disabled adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 112–124.
35.
RiceG. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 15, 39–67.
36.
RiveraD. P., & SmithD. (1997). Teaching students with learning and behavior problems (3rd Ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
37.
RosenthalR. (1979). The “file–drawer” problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
38.
RosenthalR. (1994). Statistically describing and combining studies. In CooperH. & HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
39.
SinatraR. C., Stahl–GemakeJ., & BergD. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. Reading Teacher, 38, 22–29.
40.
SlavinR. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta–analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 9–18.
41.
SmithM. L. (1980). Publication bias and meta–analysis. Evaluation in Education, 4, 22–24.
42.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York : Guilford.
43.
ThompsonB. (2006). Research synthesis: Effect sizes. In GreenJ., CamilliG., & ElmoreP. B. (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 583–603). Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Science Assessment. Retrieved January 7, 2011, from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/
45.
WallerR. (1981, April). Understanding network diagrams. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
46.
WilliamsJ. P., StaffordK. B., LauerK. D., HallK. M., & PolliniS. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content–area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 1–20.
