The Effectiveness of Graphic Organizers for Three Classifications of Secondary Students in Content Area Classes

Abstract

The purpose of the Interventions section of the journal is to provide professional practitioners with overviews of successful interventions that can be replicated with individuals with learning disabilities. These interventions can be either physiological or psychoeducational and can occur in school settings, clinics, hospitals, homes, communities, or employment sites. The discussion of these interventions generally includes (a) the theory or rationale of the interventions, (b) previous research findings, (c) characteristics of the individuals receiving the interventions, (d) the intervention that was applied, and (e) the criteria used to evaluate its success. In the first article, Steven V. Horton, Thomas C. Lovitt, and Donna Bergerud of the University of Washington describe the effectiveness of graphic organizers. In the second article, Bernadette Kelly, Russell Gersten, and Douglas Carnine of the University of Oregon describe the importance of curriculum design in teaching fractions. It would appear that careful attention to the use of graphic organizers and a well-designed curriculum can be beneficial in helping students with learning disabilities learn in content area classes and in mathematics, respectively.—JLW

Previous research concerning the graphic or visual display of information with academically handicapped students has not addressed the instructional conditions that exist in mainstream settings. This article investigates the effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students enrolled in content area classes: students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and students in regular education. The results of three separate experiments indicated that graphic organizers, whether teacher-directed, student-directed with text references, or student-directed with clues, produced significantly higher performance than self-study for each group of students. Several practical issues involving the use of graphic organizers with heterogeneous groups of secondary students are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvermann, D.E. (1982). Restructuring text facilitates written recall of main ideas. Journal of Reading, 25, 754–;758.

Alvermann, D.E. , & Boothby, P.R. (1983). A preliminary investigation of the differences in children's retention of “inconsiderate” text. Reading Psychology, 4, 237–;246.

Armbruster, B.B. (1984). The problem of “inconsiderate text.” In G.G. Duffy , L.R. Roehler , & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202–;217). New York: Longman.

Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 267–;272.

Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Ausubel, D.P. , & Anderson, R. (1965). Readings in the psychology of cognition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bauer, R. (1977). Memory processes in children with learning disabilities: Evidence for deficient rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 415–;430.

Bergerud, D. , Lovitt, T.C. , & Horton, S. V. (1988). The effectiveness of textbook adaptations in life science for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 70–;76.

Boothby, P.R. , & Alvermann, D.E. (1984). Classroom training study: The effects of graphic organizer instruction on fourth graders' comprehension. Reading World, 23, 325–;329.

10.

Darch, C. , & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–;246.

11.

Deshler, D.D. (1978). Psychoeducational aspects of learning disabled adolescents. In L. Mann , L. Goodman , & J.L. Wiederholt (Eds.), Teaching the learning-disabled adolescent (pp. 47–;74). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

12.

Estes, T.H. , Mills, D.C. , & Barron, R.F. (1969). Three methods of introducing students to a reading-learning task in two content subjects. In H.L. Herber & P.L. Sanders (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: First year report (pp. 40–;48). Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

13.

Herber, H.L. , & Barron, R.F. (Eds.). (1973). Research in reading in the content areas: Second year report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

14.

Herber, H.L. , & Riley, J.D. (Eds.). (1979). Research in reading in the content areas: Fourth year report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

15.

Herber, H.L. , & Sanders, P.L. (Eds.). (1969). Research in reading in the content areas: First year report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

16.

Herber, H.L. , & Vacca, R.T. (Eds.). (1977). Research in reading in the content areas: Third year report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

17.

Horton, S. V., & Lovitt, T.C. (1987). [Effectiveness of teacher-constructed graphic organizers]. Unpublished raw data.

18.

Horton, S.V. , & Lovitt, T.C. (1989). Construction and implementation of graphic organizers for academically handicapped and regular secondary students. Academic Therapy, 24(5), 625–;641.

19.

Horton, S.V. , & Lovitt, T.C. (1989). Using study guides with three classifications of secondary students. The Journal of Special Education, 22(4), 447–;462.

20.

Mastropieri, M. , Scruggs, T. , McLoone, B. , & Levin, J. (1985). Facilitating learning disabled students' acquisition of science classifications. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 299–;309.

21.

Moore, D.W. , & Readence, J.F. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–;17.

22.

Prescott, G.A. , Balow, I.H. , Hogan, T.P. , & Farr, R.C. (1984). The metropolitan achievement test. New York: Psychological Corp.

23.

Scruggs, T. , Mastropieri, M. , Levin, J. , & Gaffney, J. (1985). Facilitating the acquisition of science facts in learning disabled students. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 575–;586.

24.

Sinatra, R.C. , Berg, D. , & Dunn, R. (1985). Semantic mapping improves reading comprehension of learning disabled students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17, 310–;314.

25.

Sinatra, R.C. , Stahl-Gemake, J. , & Berg, D. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading Teacher, 38(1), 22–;29.

26.

Torgesen, J.K. (1985). Memory processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 350–;357.

27.

Tulving, E. , & Thomson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–;373.

28.

Vellutino, F. , Harding, C. , Stager, J. , & Phillips, F. (1975). Differential transfer in poor and normal readers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126, 3–;18.

29.

Winn, W. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D.M. Williams & H.A. Houghton (Eds.), Illustrations, graphs, and diagrams: Psychological theory and educational practice (pp. 152–;198). New York: Springer-Verlag.

30.

Wong, B. (1978). The effects of directive cues on the organization of memory and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 32–;38.

31.

Zigmond, N. , Vallecorsa, A. , & Leinhardt, G. (1980). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 89–;98.