ldrp12017

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

1/15

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(4), 196210C 2013 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

Computer-Based Graphic Organizers for Students with LD: A SystematicReview of Literature

Stephen CiulloTexas State University

The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk

Colleen ReutebuchThe University of Texas at Austin

The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk

This article presents a systematic review of the literature for studies that utilized computer- based graphic organizers for students with learning disabilities. A comprehensive searchyielded 12 studies that were coded and analyzed. The authors investigated the effectiveness of the treatments on academic outcomes, and selected integral instructional and methodologicalfeatures for evaluation in order to delineate practical implications and prioritize future research.Findings revealed high effect sizes on social studies measures and encouraging results for

written expression, while comprehension results were less promising. This review found noevidencesuggesting thatthese treatments were efcacious without theuseof explicitinstructionand guided practice.

The prevalence of technology in schools has rapidlyexpanded, and statistics suggest that increased technologi-cal access has inuenced instruction. The following guresdemonstrate that numerous educators perceive technology as benecial for enhancing learning. For example, teachers reported that computers are utilized in some capacity between29 and 40 percent of instructional time (Gray, Thomas, &Lewis, 2010). Access to laptops has increased over the past

decade, with over 50 percent of teachers reporting access tomobile computers (Gray et al., 2010). Statistics related to the prevalence of computer labs is another indicator of technol-ogys expansion, as 27 percent of schools reported having acomputer lab (23 percent in elementary; 33 percent in sec-ondary schools) (Gray et al., 2010). The previously described statistics are germane to this article for two reasons. First,the increased access to technology establishes that educatorshave numerous opportunities to use technologies for learningactivities if they deem these tools as efcacious for learning.Second, interest among researchers has risen. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of technology-based interventions for students with learning disabilities (LDs) inrecent years, and computer-assisted interventions are pro-

jected to continue (e.g., Fitzgerald, Miller, Higgins, Pierce,& Tandy, 2012).Student prociency with technology is an important vari-

able for the integration of technology in classrooms. Con-temporary students, including students with disabilities, areimmersed in a culture where technology is used to socialize

Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen Ciullo, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas State UniversitySan Marcos Collegeof Education. Electronic inquiries should be sent to [email protected].

and procure information to a greater extent than their edu-cators or parents may be accustomed to (Barnes, Marateo& Ferris, 2007). Communication via email, cellular phones,and navigating the Internet to acquire information are dailyactivities for many students (Barnes et al., 2007). Amplied technological prociency is an asset to educators that seek to integrate technology-assisted practices to enhance learn-ing and motivation (Smith & Okolo, 2010). Educators hope

that access to an increasingly complex curriculum can beimproved upon via technology to cultivate learning in stu-dents with disabilities (Rose & Meyer, 2000). However, thereality remains that numerous students with LD have learn-ing difculties that impede success, and research is needed to identify practices that benet learners with LD. This sys-tematic review of the literature investigated the efcacy of one technology-based intervention for students with LD. Af-ter an explanation of the challenges that students with LDencounter, we describe techniques that have been associated with enhancing learning.

PERVASIVE ACADEMIC DIFFICULTIES

Despite ongoing reform initiatives such as the No Child LeftBehind Act, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act, and the Common Core State Stan-dards (CCSS,2010), students with LD continue to experience profound decits in the subsequent academic skills that arerelated to this review. First, students with LD encounter per-sistent difculty with strategic writing, writing quality, and essay length (Graham & Harris, 2009). Second, 20 percentof high school students with LD perform at least ve grades

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

2/15

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 197

below their nondisabled peers in reading (National JointCommittee on Learning Disabilities, 2008). Third, contentclasses such as social studies pose challengesdueto difcultywith comparing and contrastingtextual information, connect-ing new content to prior knowledge, differentiating betweenmain idea and extraneous detail (Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz,2007), and complexities associated with informational text- books (Okolo, Englert, Bouck, & Heutsche, 2007). The pre-

viously described learning difculties for students with LD provide evidence that effective strategies and interventionsare needed to improve learning outcomes for this population.

The CCSS are an academic framework adopted by a majority of states in the United States (Haager & Vaughn,2013). The CCSS have emphasized the necessity to read and comprehend informational text with increased rigor. Read-ing informational text to acquire information is important incontent classroomslike social studies (CCSS,2010). Further-more, with the inclusion of content area curriculum in stateaccountability assessments, effective practices and tools areessential to enhance learning (Bulgren et al., 2007).

Research suggests that content enhancements, which aredened as learning tools that facilitate the understanding of

complex academic material, are associated with improved outcomes in students with LD (Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, &Sacks, 2007). Examples of content enhancements includeadvanced organizers, graphic organizers, concept maps, vi-sual displays, and computer-assistedinstruction (Gajriaet al.,2007). While many of the aforementioned content enhance-ments have been investigated using traditional paper-based formats (e.g., graphicorganizers/concept maps), this system-atic review investigates the extent to which graphic organiz-ers and concept maps can enhance learning when they areimplemented via technology.

GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS AND CONCEPT MAPS

Graphic organizers promote reading comprehension, contentacquisition, and writing (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Dexter,Park, & Hughes, 2011; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004).There are numerous types of graphic organizers and they arereferred to by the subsequent terms: concept maps, cogni-tive maps, visual displays, semantic maps or webs, storygrammar maps/templates, owcharts, and Venn diagrams(Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Kim et al., 2004). The denitionof a graphic organizer proposed by Stull and Mayer (2007)was used for this analysis: A graphic organizer consists of spatial arrangements of words (or groups of words) intended to represent the conceptual organization of text (p. 810).The subsequent denition of concept maps was applied:

A concept map is a graphical representation of conceptsand their interrelationships (Anderson-Inman, Ditson, &Ditson, 1998, p. 1). Concept maps are often used for con-tent learning, and the concepts portrayed are often organized hierarchically (Anderson-Inman et al., 1998). For decadeseducators have used paper-based graphic organizers for stu-dents with and without disabilities. However, an instructional practice of growing interest is technology-based graphic or-ganizers and concept mapping software (Boon, Burke, Fore,& Spencer, 2006b).

Syntheses and meta-analyses of paper-based graphic or-ganizers found that graphic organizers were associated withmoderate to high effect sizes for content learning and vocab-ulary on researcher-developed measures (Dexter & Hughes,2011; Dexter et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2004). However, nosystematic review of the literature that exclusively analyzed technology-based graphic organizers for students with LDacross all academic subjects was located. Previously pub-

lished reviews (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; Dexter et al., 2011;Kim et al., 2004) did not include any of the studies for whicha technological version of a graphic organizer was imple-mented. This article expands on the important ndings of those articles by including technological versions of graphicorganizers and concept maps.

Broader reviews of literature and practitioner oriented articles describing technology-assisted practices have been published. These articles described several technology-based practices and included several of the intervention studiesthat met inclusion criteria for this article. However, thesereviews did not include effect size calculations for groupdesign studies or effect sizes for single subject research. In-stead, the results were summarized and described narratively

(Boon, Fore, Blankenship, & Chalk, 2007; Fitzgerald, Koury,& Mitchem, 2008; MacArthur, 2009; Smith & Okolo, 2010;Stetter & Hughes, 2011).

This systematic review disaggregated studies that employed a technology-based graphic organizer for studentswith LD in Grades K-12 according to the following method:(i) systematically reviewing available studies that used this practice, (ii) including all academic subjects for which studieswereconducted, (iii) calculatingresults for each investigation based on statistical information provided, and (iv) includingrandomized control trials, quasi-experimental studies, sin-gle group designs, and single case research to provide aninclusive analysis, modeled after recently published system-atic reviews (e.g., Edmonds et al., 2009; Wanzek, Wexler,

Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010).

RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION

Graphic organizer and concept mapping software is increas-ingly accessible (Smith & Okolo, 2010). Given current trendsof technology in schools, including popular software pro-grams such as Inspiration R , Kidspiration R or web-based ap- plications (Smith & Okolo, 2010), a review evaluating theeffects of interventions that incorporated technology-based graphic organizers is warranted and timely. Additionally,since the majority of the identied studies have been con-ducted to improve informational text learning, a key com-

ponent of the Common Core Standards Initiative (2010),this article presents information germane to researchers and practitioners.

This systematic review examined interventions that employed a technologically based graphic organizer for studentswith LD. The organizational framework for describing theresults in this article was inuenced by recently published systematic reviews of the literature (Boyle & Rivera, 2012),andsyntheses (Soliset al., 2012; Wanzek et al., 2010). As wasthe process in the aforementioned articles, we described the

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

3/15

198 CIULLO AND REUTEBUCH : COMPUTER BASED GRAPHIC ORGANIZER REVIEW

procedures of each intervention and calculated results. Addi-tionally, to make informed decisions about teaching implica-tions and future research, we investigated the methodologyof this body of literature, and examined several instructionalfeatures based on empirical and practical rationale. Threeresearch questions guided this systematic review: (1) Whatarticles containing computer-based graphic organizer inter-ventions for students with LD have been published, and what

were the methodological characteristics of each interventionstudy? (2) How effective were the interventions for improv-ing academic outcomes? (3) Did key instructional featuresinuence the outcomes?

METHOD

Search Procedures and Criteria

Studies were identied through a multistep procedure. Anelectronic search of ERIC and PyschINFO was conducted toidentify studies including earliest available through Febru-ary 2012. Key descriptor terms (graphic organizers, concept

mapping, technology-based graphic organizers, computer- based, learning disab*, and reading disab*) were used. Next,a hand-search of the following journals was conducted for the years 20092012: Journal of Learning Disabilities, Jour-nal of Special Education Technology, Learning Disabilities A Contemporary Journal, Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, and Learning Disability Quarterly . These jour-nalswereselected becausecomputer-based graphicorganizer studies had been published in those journals previously (e.g., Journal of Special Education Technology ), or because the journals publish intervention research for students with LD(e.g., Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabili-ties Research and Practice) . The years (20092012) wereselected to accommodate for potential delays in articles ap-

pearing in electronic databases. This procedure was completed in recent synthesis articles for students with LD (e.g.,Solis et al., 2012; Wanzek et al., 2010).

Our nal step was an examination of previously published systematic reviews of the literature for interventions that in-cluded graphic organizers and/or technology across all aca-demic subjects (Boon et al., 2007; Dexter & Hughes, 2011;Dexter et al., 2011; Gajria et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2004;Stetter & Hughes, 2010; Wanzek et al., 2010), includingmathematics (Fitzgerald et al., 2008). These articles weresearched to determine if any of the included studies inte-grated a computer-based graphic organizer. This process wasinuenced by search procedures used in recently published articles (e.g., Dexter & Hughes, 2011). Thearticles were ana-

lyzed according to the following procedures: First, the tablesand references were searched. Second, for potentially related studies, the article was obtained and evaluated to make a de-cision for inclusion based on the description of the variablesand procedures.

The following inclusion criteria were established:

1 Studies published in a peer-reviewed journal betweenearliest available and 2012.

2 Participating students were in grades K-12 and clas-sied with LD. At least 50 percent of the sample

included students with LD or data for students withLD was disaggregated.

3 A key component of the intervention involved acomputer/technology-based graphic organizer. Thisincluded the following terms: computer-based storymapping, story maps, cognitive mapping, conceptmapping, cognitive organizers, ow charts, visualdisplays, story grammar template, or semantic maps.

The authors used two criteria to determine if acomputer-based graphic organizer or concept mapwas an integral variable: First, the authors analyzed the language and description in each article (e.g., Inspiration R graphic organizer software was used). Next, procedures for each study were reviewed toconrm that the content-enhancement tool described was a graphic organizer or concept map, and that thetool was used consistently during the study. For arti-cles where evidence of a graphic organizer was un-clear, such as in Horton, Lovitt, & Givens (1988), theauthors reviewed the article and determined if suf-cient evidenceof a graphicorganizer was present. Thefollowing denition of graphic organizers guided our

decision: A graphic organizer consists of spatial ar-rangements of words (or groups of words) intended torepresent the conceptual organization of text (Stull& Mayer, 2007, p. 810).

4 Outcomes measures included reading comprehen-sion, content learning (science, social studies, or math), vocabulary, or writing.

5 Experimental, quasi-experimental, single-case, and single-group design studies were included.

Data Analysis

Coding Procedures

A coding form was adapted from a previous synthesis(Wanzek et al., 2010). Information included participants,methodology, intervention and comparison description, clar-ity of causal inference, measures, and ndings. The codesheet included forced-choice items (e.g., research design,assignment method, and delity of implementation), open-ended items (e.g., age, grade, duration of intervention, ad selection criteria), and a written description of conditions.Two individuals double-coded all articles. Interrater reliability was established by having each coder independentlycode three articles to achieve reliability of 90 percent. A re-liability minimum of 90 percent was attained with a rangeof 90100 percent. Reliability was calculated by dividing the

number of agreements bythe number of agreementsplus dis-agreements. If disagreements occurred, meetings were held to discuss information and reach a consensus.

Effect Size Calculation

Effect sizes were calculated for the dependent variablesin treatment-comparison studies that provided means, stan-dard deviations, sample size, or F values. Effect sizes werecalculated using a formula that takes into account pretest

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

4/15


differences, following the trend of recent reviews (Edmondset al., 2009; Solis et al., 2012; Wanzek et al., 2010). Hedges g was used because it is less subject to error than other ef-fect size models for studies with small samples. Effect sizewas calculated as the difference between the mean posttestscore of the treatment group minus the mean pretest scoreof the treatment group divided by the standard deviationof the control group on pretest. Next, we subtracted the

mean posttest score of the control group minus the mean pretest score of the control condition divided by the stan-dard deviation of the control group on the pretest (seehttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/refeences). Hedges and Olkins(1985) interpretation criteria was used: (i) an effect of .80or greater is a high effect, (ii) .50 is a medium effect, and (iii).20 or below is considered a low effect.

Single Case

Percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) (Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1998) was used for single-case studies. Al-though there is not a consensus for which interpretation

method is preferred for single-case research (Kratochwillet al., 2010), PND was used in recent synthesis articles for students with LD (Rogers & Graham, 2008; Solis et al., 2012;Wanzek et al., 2010). PND was computed by identifying thehighest baseline data point, then determining the extent towhich scores in treatment were higher than that data point.The number of treatment sessions above the highest baseline point was divided by the total number of treatment sessionsto yield a percentage (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). Theinterpretation of PND was: 90 percent or above is a very ef-fective treatment; 7090 percent was an effective treatment,5070 percent was a questionable treatment, and below 50 percent was ineffective (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). PNDwas calculated for measures that included a line graph.

Single Group

Five studies used a single-group design (Anderson-Inman,Knox-Quinn, & Horney, 1996; Bahr, Nelson, & Van Meter,1996; Boon, Fore, Ayres, & Spencer, 2005; Englert, Wu,& Zhao, 2005; Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002). Similar to previous reviews(Edmonds et al., 2009; Wanzek et al., 2010),results were calculated based on the inclusion of sufcientinformation provided in each study. This included meansand standard deviations for the treatments (Bahr et al., 1996;Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002), growth from pretest to posttest (Boon et al., 2005), and a description of results when

a pretest was not included (Englert et al., 2005).

RESULTS

The results were organized into three parts to connect thendings to each research question. First, methodologicalcharacteristics were summarized to provide information re-garding the prominent methodological features for this col-lection of studies. This process closely resembles themethod-

ological overview provided in a recently published readingsynthesis for students with LD (Solis et al., 2012). Table 1depicts these features including research design, treatmentduration, treatment integrity, and grade. This overview con-tributed to the identication of considerations for future re-search. Second, a description of procedures and outcomes is provided. The results were organized according to the depen-dent variable targeted (Table2). Finally, instructional features

were examined to inform practice and research.Each elementwas selected based on empirical or practical rationale. Therst variable weexaminedwas theextent of instructional support provided to students for the completion of content on thegraphic organizer. This component was chosen to determinethe level of independent application with these tools, and ex-tends on analysis of this featureincludedin Kimet al.s (2004)graphic organizer synthesis. Next, the person implementingthe intervention was reviewed to determine if teachers could implement this practice, and to discuss practicability. Finally,the instructional delivery process was examined to determineif principles of instruction deemed effective for students withLD based on empirical evidence (e.g., Vaughn, Gersten, &Chard, 2000)wereintegrated, including feedback and explicit

instruction.

Methodological Synopsis

Twelve studies met criteria, were double coded, and reviewed.Thirteen studies were initially selected but, after examina-tion, Clay, Zorfass, Brann, Kotula, and Smolkowski (2009)was excluded because the number of students with LD wasnot identied and students with LD were not disaggregated within the results. Table 1 provides an overview of the meth-ods used in each study.

Intervention Overview

Across the 12 studies, intervention was provided to 162 stu-dents with LD. The duration of interventions ranged fromtwo academic years, to less than a week of instruction. Theinstructional dosage was recorded in sessions that ranged from 30 to 90 minutes with the majority of sessions lasting between 40 and 60 minutes.

Interventions by Grade Level

Eight of the studies coded for this systematic review wereconducted with students classied as LD in secondary school(Grades 612). The remaining studies included three inves-tigations for students in upper elementary grades, and onestudy that included students in upper elementary grades and middle school.

Research Design

Four different research designs were utilized. The researchdesigns included two randomized control trials, two quasi-experimental studies, three single-case investigations, and

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

5/15


T A B L E 1

S t u d y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

S t u d y

T r e a t m e n t

S t u d y

D e s i g n

P a r t i c i p a n t s

G r a

d e / A g e

D u r a t i o n

I m p l e m e n t e r

F i d e l i t y

A n d e r s o n - I n m a n , K

n o x - Q u i n n ,

& H o r n e y ( 1 9 9 6 )

S i n g l e g r o u p

3 0 L D

T 1 , n = 7

T 2 , n

= 1 6

T 3 , n

= 1 6

7 t h , 8 t h , 1 0 t h

1 2 1

6

T w o f u l l a c a d e m i c y e a r s

S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s

a n d r e s e a r c h e r s

N R

B a h r , N e l s o n , & V a n M e t e r

( 1 9 9 6 )

S i n g l e G r o u p

( A l t e r n a t i n g t r e a t m e n t

d e s i g n )

6 L D

( t w o a n d t h r e e s t u d e n t s i n

e a c h c o n d i t i o n )

4 t h , 5 t h , 8 t h

9 1 3

2 0 s e s s i o n s , 6

0 m i n u t e s

e a c h = 2 0 h o u r s t o t a l

G r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s i n S L P

p r o g r a m

N R

B o o n , B u r k e

, F o r e , &

H a g a n - B u r k e ( 2 0 0 6 a )

Q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l

1 2 L D

T , n

= 3

C , n

= 9

1 0 t h N

R

F o u r s e s s i o n s , 9

0 m i n u t e s

e a c h f o r 3 w e e k s

S p e c i a l a n d g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n

t e a m t e a c h i n g

N R

B o o n , B u r k e

, F o r e , & S p e n c e r

( 2 0 0 6 b )

R a n d o m i z e d C o n t r o l T r i a l

1 2 L D

T , n

= 9

C , n

= 3

1 0 t h N

R

F o u r s e s s i o n s , 9

0 m i n u t e s

e a c h f o r 3 w e e k s


t e a m t e a c h i n g

N R

B o o n , F o r e , A

y r e s , &

S p e n c e r

( 2 0 0 5 )

S i n g l e G r o u p

8 L D

1 0 t h 1 5

. 8

1 w e e k ( 4 d a y s T , a n d 1

d a y d e l a y e d p o s t - t e s t )

S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r

N R

E n g l e r t , W u , & Z h a o , (

2 0 0 5 )

S i n g l e g r o u p ( A l t e r n a t i n g

t r e a t m e n t d e s i g n )

1 2 L D

( 4 i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n )

4 t h 5 t h

1 0 . 8

2 m o n t h s p r e t e a c h i n g t e x t

s t r u c t u r e a n d s t r a t e g y

( 1 w e e k i n e a c h

c o n d i t i o n )


t e a c h e r s

N R

E n g l e r t , Z h a o , D

u n s m o r e ,

C o l l i n g s , &

W o l b e r s ( 2 0 0 7 )

Q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l

2 2 L D

T , n

= 1 3

C , n

= 1 1

U p p e r e l e m e n t a r y

T =

1 0 . 6

4

C = 9 . 6 4

T h r e e t o f o u r d a i l y

s e s s i o n s , 3

0 m i n u t e s

p e r s e s s i o n


N R

S t e t t e r & H u g h e s ( 2 0 1 1 )

S i n g l e C a s e

9 L D

( n = 3 i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n )

9 t h

1 4 1

5

3 0 d a i l y s e s s i o n s ( 3 5

s e s s i o n s f o r 1 / 3 o f

s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g

m a i n t e n a n c e )

R e s e a r c h e r s

N R

S t u r m & R a n k i n - E r i c k s o n ( 2 0 0 2 ) S i n g l e G r o u p

( A l t e r n a t i n g t r e a t m e n t

d e s i g n )

1 2 L D

( n = 4 i n e a c h o f c o n d i t i o n )

8 t h 1 4

. 4

9 w e e k s , u p t o 5 0 m i n u t e s

p e r s e s s i o n

S p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ,

p l u s s u p p o r t a n d

m o n i t o r i n g f r o m S L P a n d

r e s e a r c h e r

I n s t r u c t i o n a l s e q u e n c e

c h e c k l i s t

T w y m a n & T i n d a l ( 2 0 0 6 )

R a n d o m i z e d C o n t r o l T r i a l

2 4 L D

T , n

= 1 2

C , n

= 1 2

1 1 t h 1

2 t h

N R

S i x s e s s i o n s , 4 0 5

0

m i n u t e s e a c h f o r 2

w e e k s


C h e c k l i s t a n d

r e s e a r c h e r

o b s e r v a t i o n s

U n z u e t a & B a r b e t t a ( 2 0 1 2 )

S i n g l e C a s e

4 L D

7 t h a n d 8 t h g r a d e

1 2 1

3

D a i l y

f o r 4 0 m i n u t e s

B a s e l i n e = 4 2 0

s e s s i o n s T r e a t m e n t =

1 0 2

2 s e s s i o n s

R e s e a r c h e r

C h e c k l i s t a n d

r e s e a r c h e r

o b s e r v a t i o n s

W a d e e t a l . (

2 0 1 0 )

S i n g l e c a s e

3 L D

3 r d 4 t h

9 1 0

D a i l y

f o r 4 5 m i n u t e s

P h a s e 1 =

4 d a y s P h a s e

2 =

6 d a y s P h a s e 3 =

3

d a y s


P r o c e d u r a l c h e c k l i s t

c o m p l e t e d b y

t e a c h e r

N o t e . C = c o n t r o l o r c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p ; L D =

l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y ; N R = n o t r e p o r t e d ; S L P = s p e e c h l a n g u a g e p a t h o l o g i s t ; T = t r e a t m e n t ; T 1 = t r e a t m e n t g r o u p 1 ; T 2 = t r e a t m

e n t g r o u p 2 ; T 3 = t r e a t m e n t

g r o u p 3 ; n = n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s .

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

6/15


T A B L E 2

S u m m a r y o f S t u d y F i n d i n g s

A u t h o r s

I n t e r v e n t i o n

M e a s u r e s

F i n d i n g s

A n d e r s o n - I n m a n e t a l . (

1 9 9 6 ) S t u d e n t s t a u g h t t o u s e c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d

c o n t e n t e n h a n c e m e n t t o o l s

. T r e a t m e n t

i n c l u d e d c o m p u t e r i z e d c o n c e p t m a p s ,

a n d o u t l i n i n g o n t h e c o m p u t e r .

S t u d e n t s c l a s s i e d a s p o w e r u s e r s ,

p r o m p t e d u s e r s , o r r e l u c t a n t u s e r s

b a s e d o n p r o c i e n c y , i

n d e p e n d e n c e ,

a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t r a t e g i e s .

W o r d C o m p r e h e n s i o n , W

R M T

P a s s a g e c o m p r e h e n s i o n , W

R M T

T o t a l r e a d i n g , W

R M T

W r i t t e n c o m p r e h e n s i o n , W

R M T

A c r o s s a l l o u t c o m e m e a s u r e s , m e a n s a n d

s t a n d a r d s c o r e s w e r e h i g h e r f o r p o w e r

u s e r s c o m p a r e d t o p r o m p t e d a n d

r e l u c t a n t u s e r s . T h e a u t h o r s s u g g e s t t h a t

r e a d i n g a b i l i t y w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

a d o p t i o n a n d p r o c i e n c y w i t h u s i n g

c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d s t u d y s t r a t e g i e s .

B a h r e t a l . ( 1 9 9 6 )

T 1 ( S t o r y g r a m m a r ) : T e x t - b a s e d

s o f t w a r e , F r E d W r i t e r w a s u s e d t o

p r o m p t s t u d e n t s t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s ,

p l a n a n d t y p e a s t o r y . A b o x c o n t a i n i n g

c o m p u t e r - b a s e d s t o r y g r a m m a r

o r g a n i z e r s p r o m p t e d s t u d e n t s .

T 2 ( G r a p h i c s / t e x t ) : G r a p h i c - b a s e d

N a r r a t i v e - m a t u r i t y

p e r c e n t a g e s c o r e

( m e a n s c o r e a n d S D )

T o t a l w r i t t e n w o r d s


S i m p l e c o r r e c t s e n t e n c e s w r i t t e n


C o m p l e x c o r r e c t s e n t e n c e s


S t o r y G r a m m

a r , =

2 9 . 5

p e r c e n t ( 1 . 0 0 )

G r a p h i c s c e n e s = 3 0

. 7 p e r c e n t ( 1 . 7 8 )

S t o r y g r a m m a r = 9 4

. 2 2 ( 3 7 . 5 3 )

G r a p h i c S c e n e s = 6 8

. 2 2 ( 2 9 . 8 5 )

S t o r y g r a m m a r = . 4

8 ( . 2 3 )

G r a p h i c s c e n e s = . 4

8 ( . 3 2 )

S t o r y g r a m m a r = . 3

2 ( . 2 4 )

G r a p h i c s c e n e s = . 2

9 ( . 2 4 )

s o f t w a r e , O n c e U p o n a T i m e , a l l o w e d

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f g r a p h i c v i s u a l s c e n e s

t h a t s t u d e n t s t y p e d a s t o r y a b o u t .

B o o n e t a l . (

2 0 0 6 a )

T ( C o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d

C o g n i t i v e

O r g a n i z e r ) : I n s p i r a t i o n R c o n c e p t

m a p p i n g w a s u s e d t o e n h a n c e s o c i a l

s t u d i e s l e a r n i n g .

C ( T y p i c a

l T e x t b o o

k I n s t r u c t i o n

) : T y p i c a l

t e x t b o o k i n s t r u c t i o n i n c l u d i n g g u i d e d

n o t e s , w o r k s h e e t s , a n d c o o p e r a t i v e

l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . *

S y s t e m a t i c

r e p l i c a t i o n o f B o o n , F o r e , A

y r e s , &

S p e n c e r ( 2 0 0 6 b )

S o c i a l s t u d i e s c h a p t e r t e s t ( 3 5 i t e m s ,

d e c l a r a t i v e k n o w l e d g e )

T v s . C

E S = 1 . 9 7

B o o n e t a l . (

2 0 0 6 b )


C o g n i t i v e


m a p p i n g s o f t w a r e u s e d t o l e a r n s o c i a l

s t u d i e s i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t e x t b o o k .

C ( T y p i c a

l T e x t b o o


) : T y p i c a l

t e x t b o o k i n s t r u c t i o n i n c l u d i n g g u i d e d

n o t e s , w o r k s h e e t s , a n d c o o p e r a t i v e

l e a r n i n g .

S o c i a l s t u d i e s c h a p t e r t e s t ( 3 5 i t e m s ,

d e c l a r a t i v e k n o w l e d g e )

T v s . C

E S = 1 . 8 9

B o o n e t a l . (

2 0 0 5 )


C o g n i t i v e


m a p p i n g s o f t w a r e u s e d t o e n h a n c e

s o c i a l s t u d i e s l e a r n i n g .

S o c i a l s t u d i e s c o n t e n t p r o d u c t i o n t e s t P r e M

, S D = 9 . 3 p e r c e n t

P o s t =

6 7 p e r c e n t D e l a y e d P o s t =

6 3 . 7

p e r c e n t

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

7/15


T A B L E 2

C o n t i n u e d

A u t h o r s


M e a s u r e s

F i n d i n g s

E n g l e r t e t a l . ( 2 0 0 5 )

T 1 ( S c a

f f o l d e d

) T E L E - W e b c o g n i t i v e

c o m p u t e r - b a s e d t o o l w i t h v i s u a l

s c a f f o l d s , g r a p h i c a l l y o r g a n i z e d

t e m p l a t e , a n d p r o m p t s u s e d t o w r i t e .

T 2 ( U n s c a

f f o l d e d P e r s o n a l N e w s

) :

T E L E - W e b c o g n i t i v e c o m p u t e r - b a s e d

t o o l u s e d t o w r i t e p e r s o n a l s t o r i e s , b u t

w i t h o u t v i s u a l s c a f f o l d s a n d p r o m p t s .

T 3 ( P a p e r

/ P e n c i l

) : P e r s o n a l n e w s s t o r i e s

c r e a t e d u s i n g l i n e d p a p e r a n d a p e n c i l .

P e r s o n a l - N e w s E s s a y s - a g g r e g a t e

s c o r e s b a s e d o n h i g h e s t o v e r a l l

R u b r i c r a t i n g b y c o n d i t i o n

R u b r i c s c o r e s f o r t i t l e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n

d

r e l a t e d d e t a i l w e r e s u p e r i o r i n t h e

T e c h n o l o g y - S u p p o r t e d c o n d i t i o n . A

m a j o r i t y ( n = 6 ) a t t a i n e d t h e h i g h e s t

a g g r e g a t e s c o r e i n s u p p o r t e d c o n d i t i o n .

F o u r s t u d e n t s p e r f o r m e d e q u a l l y w e l l i n

t h e u n s u p p o r t e d c o n d i t i o n .

E n g l e r t e t a l . ( 2 0 0 7 )

T ( W e b - b a s e d

S o f t w a r e ) : T E L E - W e b

c o g n i t i v e c o m p u t e r - b a s e d t o o l v i s u a l

s c a f f o l d s , c o n c e p t m a p s , a n d p r o m p t s

u s e d t o w r i t e e x p o s i t o r y p a p e r s .

C ( P a p e r a n

d P e n c i l ) : E x p o s i t o r y p a p e r s

g e n e r a t e d u s i n g p a p e r a n d p e n c i l w i t h

a g r a p h i c o r g a n i z e r u s e d f o r p l a n n i n g .

E s s a y i n t r o d u c t i o n s

C a t e g o r y i n t r o d u c t i o n s

E s s a y b r e a d t h ( c o h e r e n c e ) E s s a y

d e p t h ( s u p p o r t i n g m a i n i d e a s )

C o n c l u s i o n s t a t e m e n t s

O v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n

T v s . C

E S = 1 . 0 8 T v s . C

E S = 2 . 4 1 T v s . C

E S = 1 . 1 4 6 T v s . C

E S = 0 . 8 4

N o t e . V a r i a n c e n o t s i g n i c a n t .

T v s . C

E S = 0 . 9 2

T v s . C

E S = 0 . 9 1 5

S t e t t e r a n d H u g h e s ( 2 0 1 1 )

T 1 ( S t o r y M a p I n t e r v e n t i o n ) : A f t e r

5 1 0 s e s s i o n s i n b a s e l i n e , c o m p u t e r -

g e n e r a t e d s t o r y m a p s a n d q u i z z e s

w e r e c o m p l e t e d .

T 2 ( D e l a y e d

S t o r y M a p I n t e r v e n t i o n ) :

A f t e r 2 0 s e s s i o n s i n b a s e l i n e ,

c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d s t o r y m a p s a n d

q u i z z e s w e r e c o m p l e t e d .

T 3 ( B a s e l i n e

) : V o c a b u l a r y r e v i e w , s

t o r y

r e a d i n g , a n d a c o m p r e h e n s i o n q u i z

t a k e n o n t h e c o m p u t e r .

G a t e s M a c G i n i t i e ( C o m p r e h e n s i o n )

S t o r y m a p c o m p r e h e n s i o n q u i z z e s

( P N D

, m e a n s c o r e s , a

n d S D )

T 1 p r e t e s t

G E = 3 . 7

E S S = 4 7 2

T 1 P o s t t e s t

G E = 4 . 3

E S S = 4 8 0 . 7 5

T 2 P r e t e s t

G E = 4 . 2

E S S = 4 8 3

T 2 P o s t t e s t

G E = 4 . 9

E S S = 4 9 5

T 3 P r e t e s t

G E = 3 . 4 3

E S S = 4 6 6 . 5

T 3 P o s t t e s t

G E = 4 . 8

E S S = 4 9 3 . 5

P N D =

2 . 3 3 p e r c e n t

B a s e l i n e - 1 0 . 6 7 ( 2

. 4 1 )

T r e a t m e n t - 9 . 7 9 ( 2

. 3 5

D e l a y e d T G r o u p

B a s e l i n e - 1 1 . 4 5 ( 3

. 1 1 )

T r e a t m e n t - 1 1 . 9

3 ( 2

. 7 5 )

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

8/15


T A B L E 2

C o n t i n u e d

A u t h o r s


M e a s u r e s

F i n d i n g s

S t u r m a n d

R a n k i n - E r i c k s o n

( 2 0 0 2 )

T 1 ( N o M a p p i n g

) : D e s c r i p t i v e e s s a y s

c o m p o s e d u s i n g t r a d i t i o n a l w r i t i n g

p r o c e s s e s .

T 2 ( H a n d M a p p i n g

) : D e s c r i p t i v e e s s a y s

c o m p o s e d u s i n g h a n d - d r a w n c o n c e p t

m a p s .

T 3 ( C o m p u t e r M a p p i n g

) : D e s c r i p t i v e

e s s a y s c o m p o s e d u s i n g

c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d c o n c e p t m a p s .

N u m b e r o f w r i t t e n w o r d s ( m e a n a n d

S D )

T - U n i t s ( L a n g u a g e Q u a l i t y )

S y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y

H o l i s t i c s c o r e

T 1 = 1 3 6 . 8 8 ( 6 1 . 2 7 )

T 1 = 1 2

. 4 6 ( 6

. 3 9 )

T 1 = 1 1

. 4 2 ( 1

. 6 9 )

T 1 = 7 . 7 9 ( 1

. 7 0 )

T 2 = 1 2 5 . 7 1 ( 4 7 . 3 0 )

T 2 = 1 2

. 4 2 ( 5

. 1 8 )

T 2 = 1 0

. 6 5 ( 2

. 4 8 )

T 2 = 6 . 5 0 ( 2

. 6 4 )

T 3 = 1 3 0 . 1 7 ( 3 6 . 6 5 )

T 3 = 1 2

. 9 2 ( 4

. 1 7 )

T 3 = 1 0

. 5 2 ( 1

. 7 8 )

T 3 = 7 . 0 0 ( 2

. 5 5 )

T w y m a n a n d T i n d a l

( 2 0 0 6 )

T 1 ( C o m p u t e r

A d a p t e d T e x t

) : A u n i t o n

t h e I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n w a s

p r e s e n t e d u s i n g c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d

s t r a t e g i e s : s i m p l i e d e l e c t r o n i c t e x t ,

g r a p h i c o r g a n i z e r s s u m m a r i z i n g m a j o r

c o n c e p t s , a

n d o u t l i n e s .

R e s e a r c h e r - d e v e l o p e d

v o c a b u l a r y - m a t c h i n g

T v s . C

E S = 0 . 6 9

C 1 ( T y p i c a

l T e x t b o o


) :

I n s t r u c t i o n a b o u t t h e I n d u s t r i a l

R e v o l u t i o n w a s t a u g h t u s i n g t h e

d i s t r i c t s a d o p t e d s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e x t .

R e s e a r c h e r - d e v e l o p e d c o n c e p t m a z e

P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g e s s a y

T v s . C

E S = 0 . 6 4

E S = 0 . 8 0

U n z u e t a a n d B a r b e t t a

( 2 0 1 2 )

B S t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d s c r i p t e d r e m i n d e r s

o f w r i t i n g s t a g e s a n d e l e m e n t s o f

p e r s u a s i v e e s s a y s , f

o l l o w e d b y

p l a n n i n g , w

r i t i n g , a n d r e v i s i o n s b a s e d

o n a g i v e n w r i t i n g p r o m p t .

T I d e n t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s t o b a s e l i n e , e x c e p t

s t u d e n t s u s e d I n s p i r a t i o n s o f t w a r e

g r a p h i c o r g a n i z e r s d u r i n g p l a n n i n g

i n s t e a d o f p a p e r a n d p e n c i l p l a n n i n g .

N u m b e r o f w r i t t e n w o r d s ( m e a n w o r d

i n c r e a s e c o m p a r e d t o b a s e l i n e )

N u m b e r o f w r i t t e n w o r d s ( P N D )

S u p p o r t i n g

d e t a i l s ( S t a t e m e n t s o f

f a c t o r e x a m p l e s - m e a n i n c r e a s e

c o m p a r e d t o b a s e l i n e

P l a n n i n g t i m e ( m i n u t e s s p e n t

c o m p a r e d t o b a s e l i n e )

S y n t a c t i c a l m a t u r i t y : T - u n i t s ( m e a n

i n c r e a s e c o m p a r e d t o b a s e l i n e )

O r g a n i z a t i o n ( 6 p o i n t r u b r i c u s e d ;

m e a n i n c r e a s e c o m p a r e d t o

b a s e l i n e )

A r t h u r ( 1 2 5

. 7 ) C a r m e n ( 2 3 3 ) P e d r o ( 1 7 7

. 9 )

V i c t o r i a ( 1 0 4 )

P N D = 7 3 p e r c e n t

A r t h u r ( 4

. 5 7 ) C a r m

e n ( 7

. 1 5 ) P e d r o ( 8

. 1 0 )

V i c t o r i a ( 6

. 3 3 ) A r t h u r ( 8

. 0 0 ) C a r m e n

( 9 . 5

3 ) P e d r o ( 8 . 5 0 ) V i c t o r i a ( 8

. 4 0 ) A r t h u r

( 1 7 . 0 9 ) C a r m e n ( 1 9 . 3 5 ) P e d r o ( 9

. 6 6 )

V i c t o r i a ( 5

. 5 7 ) A r t h u r ( 0

. 6 8 ) C a r m e n

( 2 . 3

1 ) P e d r o ( 1 . 8 5 ) V i c t o r i a ( 1

. 8 3 )

W a d e e t a l . (

2 0 1 0 )

T ( C o m p u t e r - b a s e d

S t o r y M a p p i n g

) :

F o l l o w i n g b a s e l i n e p h a s e w h e r e

s t u d e n t s c o m p l e t e d s t o r y - g r a m m a r

e l e m e n t s u s i n g p a p e r a n d p e n c i l ,

s t u d e n t s p r o c e e d e d t o i n t e r v e n t i o n

w h e r e t h e y u s e d K i d s p i r a t i o n R

s o f t w a r e t o i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e s p o n d t o

s t o r y - g r a m m a r e l e m e n t s .

D a i l y c o m p r e h e n s i o n q u i z

P N D = 1 0 0 p e r c e n t

N o t e . W R M T = W o o d c o c k R e a d i n g M a s t e r y T e s t R e v i s e d ; S D = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ; B = b a s e l i n e ; T = t r e a t m e n t ; C = c o m p a r i s o n / c o n t r o l g r o u p ; E S = H e d g e s G e f f e c t s i z e ; E S S = e x t e n d e d s t a n d a r d

s c o r e ; G E = g r a d e e q u i v a l e n t ; P N D = p e r c e n t a g e o f n o n o v e r l a p p i n g d a t a .

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

9/15

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

10/15


Anderson-Inman et al. (1996) conducted a 2-year single-group study that included 30 students in Grades 7, 8, and 10. The students were taught computer-based strategies for content area learning that included electronic concept maps,note taking, and outlining. The researchers measured the capacity of students to use these tools and classied students as:(i) power users, (ii) prompted users, or (iii) reluctant users.Power users learned all strategies and applied them indepen-

dently, prompted users required support, and reluctant usersfailed to successfully implement the strategies or enhance-ment tools. The results indicate that intelligence test scoresand reading level signicantly predicted adoption levelof the computer-assisted strategies (Anderson-Inman et al.,1996). On the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT),mean scores were provided for each adoption-level group.Means were higher for the power users versus the remainingtwo groups on word comprehension, passage comprehen-sion, total reading, and written composition subtests on theWRMT. In summary, the authors concluded that reading abil-ity was associated with aptitude in computer-assisted strate-gies like concept mapping (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996).

Writing

Five writing interventions were located and subsequentlyreviewed (Bahr et al., 1996; Englert et al., 2005, 2007;Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002; Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012),while a writing measure was included in two other studiesfor which the emphasis was content acquisition (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996; Twyman & Tindal, 2006). In Twymanand Tindal (2006), a high effect size ( ES = .80) was found in favor of the treatment on a problem-solving essay, whichwas an opportunity to apply acquired content to writing. InAnderson-Inman et al. (1996), students classied as power users earned higher mean scores in written composition ver-

sus prompted and reluctant users. The authors reported thatANOVAs indicated that although the means of power userswere higher, group differences were not statistically signi-cant (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996).

A single-group study with an alternating treatment fea-ture was conducted with six students with LD in Grades 4,5, and 8 (Bahr et al., 1996). Researchers compared the ef-fects of two computer-based writing tools. Therst treatmentwas a computer-based visual box containing story grammar prompts, which is a graphic organizer because it representsthe conceptual organization and major components of thetext and story structure. The other treatment was a graphics- based software program where students used clip-art to gen-erate pictures before writing, and then wrote to describe the

scene they created. Students scored higher on narrative ma-turity, total written words, and complex sentences correctwhen using story grammar, and mean scores were identicalfor both treatments when simple correct sentences were mea-sured (Bahr et al., 1996). Despite higher mean scores withthe story grammar tool, the authors indicated that analysis of means for this small group revealed that the mean varianceswere not statistically signicant. However, the authors sug-gested that students with weaker organization skills beneted more from the story grammar prompts (Bahr et al., 1996).

Technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE-Web) are web-based frameworks that provide support for organizing and writing paragraphs and essays (Englert et al.,2005). Two studies imbedded concept maps to organize and plan writing (Englert et al., 2007), or a graphic organizer template with boxes that separated information, and con-tained a template representing the text structure that allowed students to insert titles, topic sentences, paragraphs, and con-

clusions. A single-group alternating treatment study investi-gated the effects of TELE-Web with 12 students in Grades4 and 5 (Englert et al., 2005). All students participated inthree conditions (at different time points): scaffolded writ-ing, unscaffolded writing on the computer, or a traditional paper and pencil format. In the scaffolded (supported) con-dition, students used the TELE-Web template to plan and compose an essay using graphically organized boxes. Thisalso allowed students to view teacher prompts that were cus-tomized for each student and offered temporary assistance.The unscaffolded (unsupported) condition allowed studentsto use TELE-Web to compose essays, but without the visualsupport like the graphically organized topic sentence and de-tails box. In the paper and pencil condition, students received

oral directions and wrote essays. The authors reported thataggregate scores suggested that the scaffolded (supported)TELE-Web condition was associated with the highest writ-ing scores for 6 of 12 students for titles, organization, and related detail.

A quasi-experimental study by Englert et al. (2007) compared a TELE-Web condition that employed a computer- based concept map for essay planning to a traditional paper and pencil condition that used a paper-based graphic orga-nizer. Results for writing traits were signicant in favor of the treatment on ve of six measures. High effect sizes wereidentied for essay introductions ( ES = 1.08), category in-troduction ( ES = 2.41), essay breadth ( ES = 1.146), conclu-sion statements ( ES = 0.92), and organization ( ES = 0.915).

Group means for essay depth, or supporting main ideas withdetails, was higher for the treatment group but the variancewas not signicant.

Inspiration R 8.0 (2008) graphic organizers were used inUnzueta and Barbetta (2012) as a planning tool. Four His- panic students with LD in middle school participated in thismultiple baseline study. In baseline, the researcher provided information about writing components, followed by plan-ning on paper, writing, and revising in a 45-minute session.Dosage was constant during treatment with the instructionaldifferencebeingcomputer-based graphicorganizers for plan-ning. PNDresultssuggested that thetreatmentwas associated with successfully improving the number of words written for three of the four students, with PND at 73 percent overall.

Mean scores compared to baseline suggested that studentsimproved in writing supporting details, additional minutesdedicated to planning, and improved syntactical maturity.Organization results were less promising according to a 6- point scoring rubric for three of four participants (Unzueta& Barbetta, 2012).

A single-group study with multiple treatments consid-ered the effects of two types of concept maps on the expos-itory writing of 12 middle school students with LD (Sturm& Rankin-Erickson, 2002). Students alternated between a

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

11/15


traditional writingcondition, a hand-drawn concept map con-dition, and computer-generated mapping. Students wrote twoexpository essays in each condition. The conditions werecounterbalanced to ensure that all students engaged in a dif-ferent treatment every 2 weeks. Results for words written,T-units, and holistic essay scores demonstrated that compared to baseline, students improved when taught to usehand maps and computer maps. However, results did not

demonstrate signicant differences in the performance be-tween conditions. During the no mapping condition, stu-dents wrote more words compared to hand mapping and computer mapping. Language quality (T-Units) was equiv-alent across conditions. Syntactic complexity scores werenearly equivalent when comparing conditions and minimalchange frombaseline was evident (baseline = 10.61, no mapping = 11.42, hand mapping = 10.65, computer mapping =10.52). Holistic essay results favored the no mapping condi-tion, but computer map scores were superior to hand mapping (no mapping = 7.79, hand mapping = 6.50, computer mapping = 7.00). Overall, the study determined that all stu-dents improved compared to baseline. However, results donot suggest that computer mapping is associated with im-

proved outcomes compared to hand mapping, or that theseconditions were superior to a typical no mapping phase(Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002).

Reading Comprehension

Two studies included in this review measured the capacityof students with LD to read for understanding (Stetter &Hughes, 2011; Wade et al., 2010). Anderson-Inman et al.(1996) included a standardized comprehension measure (Ta- ble 2), but the studys stated purpose was to investigate con-tent learning. On theWRMT passage comprehension subtest,students with higher computer prociency (power users) had

higher mean scores than prompted or reluctant users, but dif-ferences were not signicant (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996). Kidspiration R ( Inspiration R , 2008) software provides

templates to create graphic organizers for students in GradesK-5. Using a single-case design (ABC), two 3rd grade stu-dents and one 4th grade student were taught to create computerized story maps to support narrative comprehension(Wade et al., 2010). Baseline included reading and a quizof story grammar elements (e.g., setting, theme). Duringintervention, explicit teaching of story grammar compo-nents occurred and students received training and practiceon Kidspiration R (Inspiration R , 2008). Each session included oral reading, creation of story maps, and studying prior to thequiz. Computer-generated story mapping was benecial for

each student according to mean scores. Student means were33 percent in baseline, 86 percent in treatment, and 83 per-cent for maintenance. PND was 100 percent, suggesting thatthe treatment was associated with enhanced comprehension.

Computer-generated story mapping was used to measurethe effects on reading comprehension with nine high schoolstudents (Stetter& Hughes, 2011). In baseline, the researcher used a script to read directions for story reading and to an-swer questions on computers. Baseline included vocabulary,reading, and a comprehension quiz. In treatment, students

reviewed story elements and learned to use a computerized story grammar template to identify key story components before the quiz. Three students began treatment after ve baseline sessions; three began after 20 sessions, while threestudents remained in baseline for the studys duration to mon-itor typical practice trends (Stetter & Hughes, 2011).

Results on the Gates MacGinitie (MacGinitie, MacGini-tie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2000) showed the majority of students

improved in comprehension. From pretest to posttest, stu-dents receiving treatment after 5 days improved their gradeequivalence3.7 to 4.3.The delayedtreatment group increased from 4.2 to 4.9, and students that remained in baseline improved from 3.4 to 4.8, which represented the largest overallincrease. On daily quizzes, PND was below 5 percent withconsiderable overlap between baseline and treatment phases,which is classied as ineffective according to Scruggs and Mastropieris (1998) criteria. In summary, results suggestthat computer-based story maps were not associated withimproved learning compared to a computer-assisted baseline phase. Stetter and Hughes (2011) suggested that engagementin daily reading, not the computer story maps, may haveaccounted for the improved scores on the standardized com-

prehension test.

Instructional Features

Instructional features were analyzed to provide informationabout lesson delivery. The following components were re-viewed. First, although technology-based graphic organizerswere used in all studies, variations existed regarding the ex-tent of support provided for completing the information onthe graphic organizer. Kim et al. (2004) referred to this as- pect as teacher generated organizers, and student generated.We found that several studies utilized student independencefor completion of the information after training, while others

employed ongoing teacher or researcher provided informa-tion, or extensive guidance for completion for the durationof the study. Second, the person implementing each treat-ment was reviewed to identify differential effects based oninstructors. Third, we evaluated instructional delivery to de-termine if generalizable principles of effective instruction for students with LD were included (Vaughn et al., 2000). Thesefeatures of instruction were also analyzed in previously pub-lished syntheses for students with LD (e.g., Gajria et al.,2007: Kim, Linan-Thompson, & Misquitta, 2012).

Degree of Instructional Support

Researchers have analyzed the effects of graphic organizerswhen the information on the organizer was largely provided by the interventionist, compared to when content was in-dependently completed by students (Kim et al., 2004; Stull& Mayer, 2007). We evaluated the effects of this feature toinform classroom practice. Four studies included instructor-generatedorganizersand content that waspredominantly pro-vided to students bythe teacher (Boon et al.,2005;Boon et al.,2006a,b; Twyman & Tindal, 2006).Eight studies utilized stu-dent completion of the graphic organizers following training

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

12/15


and support (Anderson-Inman et al., 1996; Bahr et al., 1996;Englert et al., 2005, 2007; Stetter & Hughes, 2011; Sturm& Rankin-Erickson, 2002; Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012; Wadeet al., 2010).

The three treatment-comparison studies that employed teacher-generated information and pervasive support withsocial studies content yielded high effect sizes (Boon et al.,2006a, b; Twyman & Tindal, 2006) ( ES range = .641.97).

Encouraging gains from pretest to posttest were also evidentin a single-group social studies investigation (Boon et al.,2005).

Results for studies that provided initial training on thesoftware, but for which students were largely responsible for the content to include in their graphic organizer for writing or comprehension, were lessconclusive. In twostudies targetingnarrative comprehension, one study resulted in 100 percentPND (Wade et al., 2010). However, in Stetter and Hughes(2011), reading comprehension did not improve when stu-dents completed story maps independently after reading.When students completed graphic organizers to plan for es-say or paragraph writing, the results were encouraging inthree studies (Englert et al., 2005, 2007; Unzueta & Barbetta,

2012). However, Sturm and Rankin-Erickson (2002) found that computer mapping did not improve written expressionwhen compared to a no-mapping and hand-mapping condi-tion. In Bahr et al. (1996)despite slightly highermeans for thestory grammar mapping treatment, the single-group designand small sample size make causality unclear. In summary,high effect sizes in social studies were identied on studiesthat included extensive teacher support regarding the infor-mation in the organizer that was subsequently studied bystudents. Mixed results were found for studies that contained greater student independence.

Person Implementing Treatment

Teachers instructed students in nine studies (75 percent),while in three studies (25 percent), researchers taught thetreatment. High effect sizes were present in the teacher-implemented studies ( ES range = .842.41) (Boon et al.,2006a, b; Englert et al., 2007). Positive gains were also ev-ident in two single-group interventions taught by teachers(Boon et al., 2005; Englert et al., 2005). Special educationand general education teachers collaboratively taught threestudies with promising outcomes (Boon et al., 2006a, b;Englert et al., 2005). Results of the researcher-implemented interventions found positive effects in one study (Unzueta& Barbetta, 2012) with high PND across all students. Tworesearcher-led interventions were less effective for compre-

hension (Stetter & Hughes, 2011) and writing (Bahr et al.,1996).

Instructional Delivery

Studies that reported the utilization of direct or explicit in-struction had positive effects. The investigations in socialstudies that integrated systematic routines including explicitinstruction, guided practice, extended practice opportunities,

allocated time for studying content, and feedback were asso-ciated with learning advances (Boon et al., 2005; Boon et al.,2006a, b). These ndings are consistent with paper-based studies for social studies and science (Darch & Carnine,1986; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002) for which explicit instruc-tion, immediate feedback, and extended time were provided to study the content.

In Wade et al. (2010), story components such as theme

were taught explicitly before reading and completion of the story map, resulting in improved scores (Wade et al.,2010). In writing, components of instructional delivery suchas individualized practice, guided feedback, and explicittraining on persuasive writing (Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012)enhanced planning and writing. Englert et al. (2007) incorporated teacher-guided instruction, modeling, and scaffolded feedback to promote effective use of a concept map to planand write.

In summary, studies with high effect sizes and PND in-tegrated principles of effective instruction for students withLD as recommended by Vaughn et al. (2000). Notably, theseelements were also recommended by the Institute of Edu-cation Sciences (IES) literacy recommendations guidebook

(Kamil et al., 2008). The implications of these techniqueswill be discussed to offer suggestions for practice.

DISCUSSION

We summarized ndings from interventions that utilized technology-based graphic organizers or concept maps for students with LD. The goals of this article were to identifythe volume of research for this practice, the effectiveness of the research, the methodologies used, and to analyze instruc-tional features. The rationale for these goals was to evaluateeffects and make informed recommendations for research

and practice. Two main ndings were gleaned. First, contentacquisition interventions in social studies were associated with encouraging outcomes. Some promising advances for writing were present, and comprehension results were less promising. Second, we found that studies with the highesteffect sizes incorporated principles of effective instructionfor students with LD according to Vaughn et al. (2000) and literacy recommendations from the IES (Kamil et al., 2008).We found no evidence to suggest that computer-based mapping was effective for improving learning, without principlesof explicit instruction.

This review revealed similar ndings for social stud-ies outcomes as previous systematic reviews (e.g., Dexter & Hughes, 2011). This review reinforces the results from

paper-based graphic organizer studies that suggest studentswith LD-enhanced historical knowledge and vocabulary withgraphic organizers (Dexter & Hughes, 2011; DiCecco &Gleason, 2002). We identied high effect sizes on researcher-developed measures that compared computer-based graphicorganizers to textbook-based conditions (Boon et al., 2006a, b; Twyman & Tindal, 2006). Outcomes from a single-group investigation also suggest that students with LD cansuccessfully procure information with this practice (Boonet al., 2005).

8/13/2019 ldrp12017

13/15


Another notable nding is that the social studies inves-tigations used computerized organizers to support text, notto completely supplant it. These ndings are consistent witha previous synthesis of expository text interventions (Gajriaet al., 2007) and content area interventions with graphic or-ganizers (Dexter & Hughes, 2011). Given the necessity for students to read informational text and apply information,as recommended by the CCSS, it remains benecial to con-

tinue investigating interventions that integrate text. Further-more, since less research hasbeen conducted in social studiesclasses in elementary school (Swanson et al., 2012), replicat-ing interventions associated with positive effects (e.g., Boonet al., 2005; Twyman & Tindal, 2006) should be considered with Grades 4 and 5.

Reading comprehension with narrative text was onlyinvestigated in two studies (Stetter & Hughes, 2011;Wade et al., 2010). Students improved comprehension with Kidspiration R software,but only three students were included (Wade et al., 2010). All students that used computer-based story maps improved on a standardized comprehension mea-sure in Stetter and Hughes (2011), but daily quiz results werenot superior to baseline. Extensive research is needed for

reading comprehension using these tools before educatorscan have condence for enhancing comprehension.Four studies yielded promising results in writing

(Englert et al., 2005, 2007; Twyman & Tindal, 2006; Unzueta& Barbetta, 2012). Twyman and Tindals (2006) study wasdesigned for social studies, but since writing is common incontent classes, the high effect size ( ES = .80) is noteworthy.Bahr et al. (1996) found that two computer-assisted writingconditions improved writing, but more investigation is neces-sary using a design that supports causal inferences. Unzuetaand Barbetta (2012) found that students beneted from usinga graphic organizer for planning improved writing quality, but indicated that more investigation is necessary with other writing genres. Sturm and Rankin-Erickson (2002) did not

nd that computer mapping was superior to hand mappingand no mapping, which confounds the analysis and suggeststhat more research is needed to support broad adoption.

Components of quality instruction for students with LDwere included in the studies with the most promising re-sults. Vaughn et al. (2000) identied principles of effectiveinstruction (e.g., explicit instruction, guided practice) fromsyntheses of LD, and an IES practice guides recommen-dations were also present in these effective studies (Kamilet al., 2008). The components in the studies associated withthe most promising results include small-group instruction(Boon et al., 2006a, b), explicit instruction (Unzueta &Barbetta, 2012), extended student practice with feedback and interaction (Boon et al., 2005), gradual reduction of sup-

port (Englert et al., 2005), content enhancement tools (e.g.,graphic organizers), which were used in each study, and con-trolling task difculty (Boon et al., 2006b; Englert et al.,2007; Twyman & Tindal, 2006).

Three recommendations germane to this review from theIES literacy practice guide (Kamil et al., 2008) are explicitstrategy instruction (Englert et al.,2005; Unzueta & Barbetta,2012), using practices like technology to increase motiva-tion (Boon et al., 2007) and intensive support for strugglingreaders by trained professionals. The previously described at-

tributes were evident in paper-based graphic organizer stud-ieswith high effect sizes (e.g.,Boyle, 1996; Darch & Carnine,1986; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002). In summary, convergingevidence between technology-based graphic organizer stud-ies and paper-based studies is emerging. The converging ev-idence suggests that explicit instruction plays an importantrole in improving outcomes.

Limitations

Three limitations must be considered when evaluating the re-sults. First, delity of implementation was only conducted in25 percent of the studies, potentially limiting internal valid-ity (Swanson, Wanzek, Haring, Ciullo, & McCulley, 2013).Second, although we provided a comprehensive view of re-search by including all designs, the studies that used single-group designs are not typically considered for identica-tion of evidence-based practices (Odom et al., 2005). Third,researcher-developed measures were used in a majority of studies, which reects ndings of recent reviews of graphicorganizers (Dexter & Hughes, 2011).

Implications for Practice

This review suggests that teachers can have increased con-dence in using computer-based concept maps to supportsocial studies learning. Providing explicit instruction in us-ing these tools to expand on concepts from reading, or as astudy guide before quizzes (Boon et al., 2006b) may improvelearning. Informational text comprehension is an essentialcomponent of the Common Core, and these enhancementscould be a vehicle for comprehending content area text and locating textual evidence to complete a concept map for stu-dents with LD.

Second, teachers served as interventionists for the major-ity of investigations for which promising effects were found.This variable suggests that using computer-based graphic or-ganizers for high school social studies, and to assist studentswith planning ideas before writing in Grades 48, is feasiblefor classroom use.

Finally, this systematic review identied no evidence tosuggest that students can use these tools to comprehend, im- provewriting, or acquire content without explicit instruction,guided practice, feedback to support learning, and to use thesoftware prociently. These components of effective instruc-tion for students with LD continue to maintain a prominentrole in LD intervention research.

Considerations for Future Research

Randomized control trials with larger samples are needed.In social studies, students in Grades 4 and 5 should be in-cluded in future studies since the majority of social studiesresearch to date involvestudents in secondary school. Fidelityof implementation reporting occurred

ldrp12017

Documents

Transcript of ldrp12017