Double-Bubble Thinking Maps and Their Effect on Reading Comprehension in Spanish-English Bilingual Middle School Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this single case design study was to examine the efficacy of using double-bubble Thinking Maps to improve the reading comprehension of middle school Spanish-English bilingual middle school students with learning disabilities. Participants included three female Spanish-English bilingual middle school students with learning disabilities. In this multiple baseline across participants single case design study, we taught students to create a double-bubble map, a type of compare and contrast graphic organizer, for 12 expository compare and contrast text passages over 12 forty-five minute sessions. We assessed performance on creating the double-bubble map and on reading comprehension measures across baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Each participant learned to create an accurate double-bubble map for compare and contrast expository texts within two sessions. Reading comprehension scores began to increase within two intervention sessions for each participant. Results showed the positive effect of using the double-bubble Thinking Map to improve reading comprehension of compare and contrast texts. Individual (.895–.967) and overall (.94) TAU-U effect sizes showed the intervention to be highly effective. Based on the effect sizes, the double-bubble Thinking Map was effective for improving the reading comprehension of middle school Spanish-English bilingual students with learning disabilities.

Keywords

reading comprehension bilingual learners learning disabilities single subject methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvermann

D. E.

(1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885354

Archer

Hughes

(2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford.

Bakken

Mastropieri

Scruggs

(1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 300–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100302

Bataineh

R. F.

Alqatnani

A. K.

(2019). How effective is thinking maps® instruction in improving Jordanian EFL learners’ creative reading skills? TESOL Journal, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.360

Boardman

A. G.

Vaughn

Buckley

Reutebuch

Roberts

Klingner

(2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625067

Boothby

P. R.

Alvermann

D. E.

(1984). A classroom training study: The effects of graphic organizer instruction on fourth graders’ comprehension. Reading World, 23(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388078409557783

Bos

C. S.

Anders

P. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655920390305

Boyle

J. R.

(1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(2), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511250

Boyle

J. R.

(2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 10(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511250

10.

Breitenstein

Gross

Garvey

Hill

Fogg

Resnick

(2010). Implementation fidelity in community-based interventions. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20373

11.

Brown

S. H.

Lignugaris-Kraft

Forbush

D. E.

(2016). The effects of morphemic vocabulary instruction on prefix vocabulary and sentence comprehension for middle school students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(3), 301–338. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0014

12.

Ciullo

Falcomata

Vaughn

(2015). Teaching social studies to upper elementary students with learning disabilities: Graphic organizers and explicit instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713516767

13.

Cutting

Materek

Cole

Levine

Mahone

(2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0022-0

14.

Daniel

Walsh

Goldston

Arnold

Reboussin

Wood

(2006). Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060301

15.

Dexter

D. D.

Hughes

C. A.

(2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400104

16.

DiCecco

V. M.

Gleason

M. M.

(2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040201

17.

Englert

C. S.

Hiebert

E. H.

(1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.65

18.

Faggella-Luby

Deshler

(2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00265.x

19.

Faramarzi

Moradi

Abedi

(2018). Comparing the effect of thinking maps training package developed by the thinking maps method on the reading performance of dyslexic students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(3), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9545-4

20.

Grimm

Solari

Gerber

(2018). A longitudinal investigation of reading development from kindergarten to grade eight in a Spanish-speaking bilingual population. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 559–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9798-1

21.

Horner

Swaminathan

Sugai

Smolkowski

(2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0011

22.

Hyerle

Curtis

Alper

(2004). Student successes with thinking maps: School-based research, results, and models for achievement using visual tools. Corwin Press.

23.

Kieffer

(2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.02.003

24.

Kim

Vaughn

Klingner

Woodruff

Klein-Reutebuch

Kouzekanani

(2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270040401

25.

Kim

Vaughn

Wanzek

Wei

(2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020201

26.

Landa

K. G.

Barbetta

P. M.

(2017). The effects of repeated readings on the reading performances of Hispanic English language learners with specific learning disabilities. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 20(1), 1–13.

27.

Lenz

(2013). Calculating effect size in single-case research: A comparison of nonoverlap methods. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612456401

28.

Lesaux

N. K.

Crosson

A. C.

Kieffer

M. J.

Pierce

(2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.004

29.

Lesaux

N. K.

Kieffer

(2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469

30.

Mancilla-Martinez

Lesaux

Graesser

A. C.

(2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019135

31.

Mashal

Kasirer

(2011). Thinking maps enhance metaphoric competence in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2045–2054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.012

32.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). National assessment of educational progress 2017: Reading assessments. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

33.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards: Science and technical subjects grades 6-8.

34.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

35.

Praveen

S. D.

Rajan

(2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p155

36.

Proctor

C. P.

August

Carlo

M. S.

Snow

(2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.159

37.

Proctor

C. P.

Dalton

Uccelli

Biancarosa

Snow

Neugebauer

(2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2

38.

Pyle

Vasquez

A. C.

Lignugaris-Kraft

Gillam

S. L.

Reutzel

D. R.

Olszewski

Segura

Hartzheim

Laing

Pyle

(2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.179

39.

Rakap

(2015). Effect sizes as result interpretation aids in single-subject experimental research: Description and application of four nonoverlap methods. British Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12091

40.

Richman

J. M.

Rosenfeld

L. B.

Bowen

G. L.

(1998). Social support for adolescents at risk of school failure. Social Work, 43(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.4.309

41.

Ritchey

K. D.

Palombo

Silverman

R. D.

Speece

D. L.

(2017). Effects of an informational text reading comprehension intervention for fifth-grade students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716682689

42.

Scruggs

Mastropieri

(2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512440730

43.

Seifert

Espin

(2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444275

44.

Slater

W. H.

(1985). Teaching expository text structure with structural organizers. Journal of Reading, 28(8), 712–718.

45.

Stull

A. T.

Mayer

R. E.

(2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808

46.

Swanson

Wanzek

Haring

Ciullo

McCulley

(2013). Intervention fidelity in special and general education research journals. Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419516

47.

Swanson

Orosco

Kudo

Cirino

Willcutt

(2017). Does growth in the executive system of working memory underlie growth in literacy for bilingual children with and without reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415618499

48.

Taboada Barber

Buehl

Kidd

Sturtevant

Richey Nuland

Beck

(2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of a social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140

49.

Tarlow

K. R.

Penland

(2016). Percentage of Nonoverlapping Data (PND) calculator. http://ktarlow.com/stats/pnd/

50.

Tong

Irby

B. J.

Lara-Alecio

Koch

(2014). Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: From learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833072

51.

Vaughn

Martinez

L. R.

Linan-Thompson

Reutebuch

C. K.

Carlson

C. D.

(2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167018

52.

Vaughn

Martinez

L. R.

Wanzek

Roberts

Swanson

Fall

(2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000069

53.

Wanzek

Vaughn

Roberts

Fletcher

J. M.

(2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800105

54.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). Single case design technical documentation (Version 1.0).

55.

Wiederholt

Bryant

(2001). Gray oral reading tests (4th ed.). Pro-Ed.

56.

Wijekumar

Meyer

Lei

Hernandez

August

(2018). Improving content area reading comprehension of Spanish speaking English learners in Grades 4 and 5 using web-based text structure instruction. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 1969–1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9802-9

57.

Williams

J. P.

Hall

K. M.

Lauer

K. D.

Stafford

K. B.

DeSisto

L. A.

deCani

J. S.

(2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538

58.

Williams

J. P.

Stafford

K. B.

Lauer

K. D.

Hall

K. M.

Pollini

(2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013152

59.

Wise

(2009). Adolescent literacy: The cornerstone of student success. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.5.1

60.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Riverside.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.57 MB