The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of a graphic organizer for improving the expository text comprehension of adolescent Spanish–English bilingual students with learning disabilities. Students were two females and one male. Using a multiple baseline single case design, researchers taught students to create a funnel map graphic organizer for 10 descriptive text passages. Students’ performance was assessed on their ability to correctly create the funnel map (criterion variable) and to comprehend expository passages during baseline, intervention, and maintenance phases. Each participant learned to create an accurate funnel map within four sessions. Text comprehension scores began to increase within three sessions. Results showed the positive effect of using the funnel map for improving comprehension of expository texts. Individual Tau effect sizes (.81–.92) and overall Tau-U effect sizes (.86) and a Between Case-Standardized Mean Difference (BC-SMD) of 1.87 showed the intervention to be highly effective.
BakerC.JonesS. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Multilingual Matters.
4.
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/10.2307/151125
5.
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/10.1016/B978-0-12-388409-1.00007-2
6.
Calvin & Gray. (2022). Double-bubble thinking maps and their effect on reading comprehension in Spanish-English bilingual middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720958644
7.
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
8.
CotéN.GoldmanS.SaulE. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545019
9.
CromleyJ.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
10.
DexterD.ParkY.HughesC. (2011). A meta-analytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.x
11.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
12.
Faggella-LubyM.DeshlerD. D. (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
13.
FarniaF.GevaE. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(4), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.1200
14.
GallagherM. A.BarberA. T.BeckJ. S.BuehlM. M. (2019). Academic vocabulary: Explicit and incidental instruction for students of diverse language backgrounds. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 35(2), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1510796
15.
GraesserA.McNamaraD.KulikowichJ. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260
16.
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
17.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
18.
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
19.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Pearson.
20.
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
21.
KimA.VaughnS.WanzekJ.ShangjinW. (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
22.
KlingbeilD.RenshawT. L.WillenbrinkJ. B.CopekR. A.ChanK. T.HaddockA.YassineJ.CliftonJ. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of group-design studies. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.006
23.
KraalA.KraalA.KoornneefA.KoornneefA.SaabN.SaabN.van den BroekP.van den BroekP. (2018). Processing of expository and narrative texts by low- and high-comprehending children. Reading & Writing, 31(9), 2017–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9789-2
24.
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/10.1177/07481756124564
25.
LesauxN.CrossonA.KiefferM.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
26.
LesauxN.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
27.
LiJ.TongF.IrbyB. J.Lara-AlecioR.RiveraH. (2021). The effects of four instructional strategies on English learners’ English reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168821994133
28.
LiM.KohP. W.GevaE.JoshiR. M.ChenX. (2021). The componential model of reading in bilingual learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(8), 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000459
29.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2019). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter?Learning Disability Quarterly, 43, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719826296
30.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. L. (2018). School psychologists’ confidence in learning disability identification decisions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718769251
31.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109
32.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020a). Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by age group and sex, race/ethnicity, and type of disability: 2018-19. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_204.50.asp
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.
41.
NitidoH.PlanteE. (2020). Diagnosis of developmental language disorder in research studies. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 8, 2777–2788. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00091
42.
OakhillJ. V.CainK. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219
43.
O’ReillyT.WangZ.SabatiniJ. (2019). How much knowledge is too little? When a lack of knowledge becomes a barrier to comprehension. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1344–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619862276
44.
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
45.
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB. (2021). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.5.2) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
46.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL.ShadishW. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(5), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577
47.
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
48.
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
49.
RuizF.FlórezC.García-MartínM.Monroy-CifuentesA.Barreto-MonteroK.García-BeltránD.Riaño-HernándezD.SierraM.Suárez-FalcónJ.Cardona-BetancourtV.Gil-LucianoB. (2018). A multiple-baseline evaluation of a brief acceptance and commitment therapy protocol focused on repetitive negative thinking for moderate emotional disorders. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.04.004
50.
ScarboroughH. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In NeumanS.DickinsonD. (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
51.
ShadishW.HedgesL.PustejovskyJ. (2014). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs with a standardized mean difference statistic: A primer and applications. Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.005
52.
StrongJ. Z. (2020). Investigating a text structure intervention for reading and writing in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.356
53.
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
54.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.VaughnS.FallA.RobertsG.HallC.MillerV. L. (2017). Middle school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below-average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 33(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1072068
55.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
56.
ValentineJ.Tanner-SmithE. E.PustejovskyJ. E.LauT. S. (2016). Between-case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single-case designs: A primer and tutorial using the scdhlm web application. Campbell Systematic Review, 12(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2016.1
57.
VaughnS.CirinoP.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ.DentonC.BarthA.RomainM.FrancisD. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087786
58.
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
59.
VaughnS.RobertsG.SchnakenbergJ.FallA.VaughnM.WexlerJ. (2015). Improving reading comprehension for high school students with disabilities: Effects for comprehension and school retention. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585478
60.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA.CirinoP.RomainM.FrancisD.FletcherJ.DentonC. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700401
61.
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
62.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What works clearinghouse standards handbook (Version 4.1). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
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.
