Concept maps have been used to help students with learning disabilities (LD) improve literacy skills and content learning, predominantly in secondary school. However, despite increased access to classroom technology, no previous studies have examined the efficacy of computer-based concept maps to improve learning from informational text for students with LD in elementary school. In this study, we used a concurrent delayed multiple probe design to evaluate the interactive use of computer-based concept maps on content acquisition with science and social studies texts for Hispanic students with LD in Grades 4 and 5. Findings from this study suggest that students improved content knowledge during intervention relative to a traditional instruction baseline condition. Learning outcomes and social validity information are considered to inform recommendations for future research and the feasibility of classroom implementation.
BaranekA.FienupD. M.PaceG. (2011). Brief experimental analysis of sight word interventions: A comparison of acquisition and maintenance of detected interventions. Behavior Modification, 35, 78-94.
2.
BelfioreP. J.GrskovicJ. A.MurphyA. M.ZentallS. S. (1996). The effects of antecedent color on reading for students with learning disabilities and co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 432-438.
3.
BoonR. T.ForeC.IIIRasheedS. (2007). Students’ attitudes and perceptions toward technology-based applications and guided notes instruction in high school world history classrooms. Reading Improvement, 44, 23-31.
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. doi:10.1080/0156655920390305
5.
BulgrenJ.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121-133. doi:10.1177/00222194070400020301
6.
CiulloS.ReutebuchC. (2013). Computer-based graphic organizers for students with LD: A systematic review of literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 196-210. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12017
7.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
8.
DalyE. J.IIIBonfiglioC. M.MattsonT.PersampieriM.Foreman-YatesK. (2006). Refining the experimental analysis of academic skills deficits: Part II. Use of brief experimental analysis to evaluate reading fluency treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 323-331.
9.
DalyE. J.IIIGarbaczS. A.OlsonS. C.PersampieriM.NiH. (2006). Improving oral reading fluency by influencing students’ choice of instructional procedures: An experimental analysis with two students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 13-30.
10.
DexterD. D.HughesC. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 51-72.
11.
FordD. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move forward. Exceptional Children, 78, 391-405.
12.
GrahamS.HebertM. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instrucstion on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.
13.
GrayL.ThomasN.LewisL. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (First look, NCES 2010-040). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
14.
HaagerD.VaughnS. (2013). The common core state standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 5-16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12000
15.
HewardW. L. (1978, May). The delayed multiple baseline design. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.
16.
Inspiration (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. Beaverton, OR: Inspiration Software®, Inc.
17.
JamesonJ. M.WalkerR.UtleyK.MaughanR. (2012). A comparison of embedded total task instruction in teaching behavioral chains to massed one-on-one instruction for students with intellectual disabilities accessing general education settings and core academic content. Behavior Modification, 36, 320-340.
18.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 289-298.
19.
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. doi:10.1177/0022219404037002020
20.
MayerR. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
21.
McGraw-Hill Education. Treasures. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Changes in instructional hours in four subjects by public school teachers of grades 1 through 4 (NCES 2007-306). Washintgon, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: U.S. History 2010 (NCES 2011-468). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
25.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
ReganK.BerkeleyS.HughesM.KirbyS. (2014). Effects of computer-assisted instruction for struggling elementary readers with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 106-119. doi:10.1177/0022466913497261
28.
SáenzL. M.FuchsL. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31-41. doi:10.1177/074193250202300105
29.
SmithS. J.OkoloC. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit?Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257-272.
30.
SwansonE.SolisM.CiulloS.McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 115-126.
31.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR.RashotteC. (1999). TOWRE-2: Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED Publishing, Inc.
32.
WadeE.BoonR. T.SpencerV. G. (2010). Use of Kidspiration software to enhance the reading comprehension of story grammar components for elementary-age students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 8(2), 31-41.
33.
WhiteA. G.BaileyJ. S. (1990). Reducing disruptive behaviors of elementary physical education students with sit and watch. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(3), 353-359.
