Graphic Organizers and Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

This meta-analysis reviews experimental and quasiexperimental studies in which upper-elementary, intermediate, and secondary students with learning disabilities learned from graphic organizers. Following an exhaustive search for studies meeting specified design criteria, 55 standardized mean effect sizes were extracted from 16 articles involving 808 participants. Students at levels ranging from grade 4 to grade 12 used graphic organizers to learn in core-content classes (English/reading, sci ence, social studies, mathematics). Posttests measured near and far transfer. Across several conditions, settings, and features, the use of graphic organizers was associated with increases in vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, and inferential knowledge. Mean effect sizes varied from moderate to large based on type of meas ure, type of graphic organizer, and subject area. Conclusions, implications for future research, and practical recommendations are presented.

The effectiveness of a question-exploration routine for enhancing the content learning of secondary students.

“…CERs exemplify effective instmction using components such as graphic organizers and specific strategies embedded within a larger set of instructional procedures (Dexter & Hughes, 2011). In CERs, content refers to the facts, concepts, ideas, relationships, procedures, applications, and generalizations that students must leam and use in a particular subject or discipline, such as science, social studies, mathematics or language arts.…”

Highlights in Reading Comprehension Intervention Research for Students with Learning Disabilities

“…In a review of intervention research quality, Jitendra, Burgess, and Gajria (2011) found that group designed research generally met evidence standards; however, many group design studies conducted prior to 1997 and single subject studies did not meet evidence standards. Although reading comprehension interventions have been established as effective (Berkley et al, 2010;Dexter & Hughes, 2011;Gajria et al, 2007;Gersten et al, 2001), many studies have either demonstrated small effects or noted nonresponse. Future research should attend to quality indicators established in recent years ( Jitendra et al, 2011) and to establishing the effectiveness of interventions for all students with LD.…”

“…Fortunately for more proficient readers, researchers have documented the positive effects of expository reading comprehension interventions that address comprehension difficulties by enhancing text and by providing cognitive strategy instruction. Several thorough meta-analyses of expository text interventions have been published (Berkley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010;Dexter & Hughes, 2011;Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007) and have been utilized in this review, when appropriate, for reporting effect sizes.…”

Concept Raps versus Concept Maps: A Culturally Responsive Approach to STEM Vocabulary Development

“…This led the researchers to conclude that concept mapping is a valid tool to document students' changes in conceptual understanding. The effects of concept maps on student learning outcomes have been documented in several meta-analyses and research syntheses [30,31]. The results of these literature syntheses consistently conclude that concept maps are more effective than traditional interventions such as note-taking or direct instruction.…”