Low-achieving seventh-grade students from an urban parochial school were randomly assigned to two equally sized groups (n = 62, each group). One group was taught by a read-and-discuss, teacher-directed method, and the second group, given the same type of introductory lesson as the first, followed a model of concept mapping that connected major and minor concept ideas. A criterion-referenced test based on the content of a science chapter served as the dependent variable. Prior to any teaching, a pretest was administered. An analysis of covariance with pretest scores as the covariate showed a statistically significant difference in comprehension between the pretest and posttest for the experimental group. Effect size estimates revealed that concept mapping can be expected to improve comprehension scores of low-achieving seventh graders by approximately six standard deviations over a traditional instructional technique. When students lack background information on a topic to aid comprehension, the active participation in constructing semantic or concept maps may help students form a cognitive schema to assimilate and relate the new topic information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Testronics. (1989). Comprehensive assessment program: National achievement test norms booklet. Chicago: Author.
2.
Anderson, T.H., & Huang, S.C.C. (1989). On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text (Tech. Rep. No. 483). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
3.
Armbruster, B., & Anderson, T. (1980). The effect of mapping on the free recall of expository text (Tech. Rep. No. 160). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
4.
Bonds, C.W. (1989). Using semantic webbing to develop outlining skills . Reading Improvement, 26, 194-198.
5.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31-42.
6.
Boyle, J. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities . Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86-98.
7.
Bunch, M.B. (1992). Review of the national achievement test (second edition). In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 588-590). Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
8.
Checkley, K. (1999). International math and science study calls for depth, not breadth. ASCD Education Update, 39, 1, 3, 48.
9.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112, 155-159.
10.
Cronin, H., Meadows, D., & Sinatra, R. (1990). Integrating computers, reading, and writing across the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 48, 57-62.
11.
Cronin, H., Sinatra, R., & Barkley, W.F. (1992). Combining writing with text organization in content instruction. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 34-45.
12.
Dickson, S. (1999). Integrating reading and writing to teach compare-contrast text structure: A research-based methodology. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 49-79.
13.
Englert, C.S., & Mariage, T.V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading "POSSE." Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123-138.
14.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H.M., & Stevens, D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372.
15.
Englert, C.S., & Thomas, C.C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students . Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93-105.
16.
Freedman, D. (1998, Fall). Science education: How curriculum and instruction are evolving. ASCD Curriculum Update, 1-3, 6, 8.
17.
Gillet, J.W., & Temple, C. (1994). Understanding reading problems: Assessing and instructing (4th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman/Little Brown .
18.
Gordon, C.J., & Braun, C. (1983). Using story schema as an aid to reading and writing . The Reading Teacher, 37, 116-121.
Kameenui, E.J., & Carnine, D.W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. New York: Prentice Hall.
21.
Kiewra, K.A. (1985). Investigating note taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23-32.
22.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amersterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
23.
Mosenthal, J.H. (1994). Text structure. In A. C. Purves, L. Papa, & S. Jordan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts (pp. 1201-1203). New York: Scholastic.
24.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York : McGraw-Hill. Ogle, D.M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
25.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
26.
Raphael, T.E., & Englert, C.S. (1989). Acquisition of expository writing skills. In J. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 47-52). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
Raphael, T.E., Englert, C.S., & Kirschner, B.W. (1986). The impact of text structure instruction and social context on students' comprehension and production of expository text (Research Series No. 177). East Lansing : Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
28.
Raphael, T.E., & Kirschner, B.W. (1985). The effects of instruction in comparison/contrast text structure on sixth grade students' reading comprehension and writing products (Research Series No. 161). East Lansing : Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
29.
Richgels, D., McGee, L., Lomax, R.G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177-196.
30.
Schafer, W.D. (1992). Analysis of pretest-posttest designs. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25, 2-4.
31.
Seaman, T. (1990). On the high road to achievement: Cooperative concept mapping. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 140)
32.
Sinatra, R.C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading Teacher, 38, 22-29.
Thomas, C.C., Englert, C.S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21-30.
35.
Vallecorsa, A.L., & de Bettencourt, L.U. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 173-188.
36.
Van den Broek, P. (1989). The effects of causal structure on the comprehension of narratives: Implications for education. Reading Psychology , 10, 19-44.
37.
Wolf, F.M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
38.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1997). Research on genre-specific strategies for enhancing writing in adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 140-159.
39.
Wong, B.Y.L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 447-482.
40.
Worden, P.E. (1986). Prose comprehension and recall in disabled learners . In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neurological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 244-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
Yager, R.E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588.
42.
Yates, G.C.R., & Yates, S. (1990). Teacher effectiveness research: Towards describing user-friendly classroom instruction. Educational Psychology , 10, 225-238.
43.
Yore, L.D., & Craig, M.T. (1990, April). A preliminary report: An assessment of what Grade 5 students know about science text and science reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 589), Atlanta, GA.
