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.
ArcherA.HughesC. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford.
3.
BakkenJ.MastropieriM.ScruggsT. (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
4.
BatainehR. F.AlqatnaniA. 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
5.
BoardmanA. G.VaughnS.BuckleyP.ReutebuchC.RobertsG.KlingnerJ. (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
6.
BoothbyP. R.AlvermannD. 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
7.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655920390305
8.
BoyleJ. 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
9.
BoyleJ. 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.
BreitensteinS.GrossD.GarveyC.HillC.FoggL.ResnickB. (2010). Implementation fidelity in community-based interventions. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20373
11.
BrownS. H.Lignugaris-KraftB.ForbushD. 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.
CiulloS.FalcomataT.VaughnS. (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.
CuttingL.MaterekE.ColeA.LevineC.MahoneA. (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.
DanielS.WalshA.GoldstonD.ArnoldE.ReboussinB.WoodF. (2006). Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060301
15.
DexterD. D.HughesC. 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.
DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. 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.
EnglertC. S.HiebertE. 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-LubyM.DeshlerD. (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.
FaramarziS.MoradiM.AbediA. (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.
GrimmR.SolariP.GerberE. (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.
HornerR.SwaminathanH.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK. (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.
HyerleD.CurtisS.AlperL. (2004). Student successes with thinking maps: School-based research, results, and models for achievement using visual tools. Corwin Press.
23.
KiefferM. (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.
KimA.VaughnS.KlingnerJ.WoodruffA.Klein-ReutebuchC.KouzekananiK. (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.
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(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020201
26.
LandaK. G.BarbettaP. 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.
LenzA. (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.
LesauxN. K.CrossonA. C.KiefferM. J.PierceM. (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.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. (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-MartinezJ.LesauxN.GraesserA. 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.
MashalN.KasirerA. (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.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. 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.
PraveenS. D.RajanP. (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.
ProctorC. P.AugustD.CarloM. S.SnowC. (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.
ProctorC. P.DaltonB.UccelliP.BiancarosaG.MoE.SnowC.NeugebauerS. (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.
PyleN.VasquezA. C.Lignugaris-KraftB.GillamS. L.ReutzelD. R.OlszewskiA.SeguraH.HartzheimD.LaingW.PyleD. (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.
RakapS. (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.
RichmanJ. M.RosenfeldL. B.BowenG. 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.
RitcheyK. D.PalomboK.SilvermanR. D.SpeeceD. 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.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (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.
SeifertK.EspinC. (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.
SlaterW. H. (1985). Teaching expository text structure with structural organizers. Journal of Reading, 28(8), 712–718.
45.
StullA. T.MayerR. 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.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.HaringC.CiulloS.McCulleyL. (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.
SwansonH.OroscoM.KudoM.CirinoP.WillcuttE. (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 BarberA.BuehlM.KiddJ.SturtevantE.Richey NulandL.BeckJ. (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
TongF.IrbyB. J.Lara-AlecioR.KochJ. (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.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.Linan-ThompsonS.ReutebuchC. K.CarlsonC. 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.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WanzekJ.RobertsG.SwansonE.FallA. (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.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FletcherJ. 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).
WijekumarK.MeyerB.LeiJ.HernandezF.AugustP. (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.
WilliamsJ. P.HallK. M.LauerK. D.StaffordK. B.DeSistoL. A.deCaniJ. 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.
WilliamsJ. P.StaffordK. B.LauerK. D.HallK. M.PolliniS. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013152
59.
WiseB. (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.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (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.
