Hammill Institute on Disabilities

The Effects of a Cognitive Mapping Strategy on the Literal and Inferential Comprehension of Students with Mild Disabilities Author(s): Joseph R. Boyle Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 86-98 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511250 . Accessed: 09/02/2014 20:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE EFFECTS OF A COGNITIVE MAPPING STRATEGYON THE LITERAL AND INFERENTIAL OF COMPREHENSION STUDENTS WITH MILDDISABILITIES
Joseph R. Boyle
Abstract. This study examined the effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential reading comprehension of students with mild disabilities learning disabilities (LD) and educable mental retardation (EMR). Thirty students with mild disabilities who exhibited poor reading comprehension, as evidenced by low reading comprehension scores on standardized tests, were matched on three variables (disability, grade, and reading achievement) and assigned to either an experimental or a control group. Through a strategy format, students in the experimental group were taught to independently create cognitive maps from reading passages. Students who were taught the cognitive mapping strategy demonstrated substantial gains in both literal and inferential comprehension measures with below-grade level reading passages as well as on-grade level reading passages. The limitations of the research and implications of this strategy for classroom application are discussed.

Reading is without argument one of the most important skills that children can develop. Literacy has academic, societal, and economic implications in today's culture. The abilityto be literin ate, more specificallyto read, has ramifications almost all facets of our life. From reading questions on an applicationto findingthe weather report in the newspaper,we are in some way using at least minimalreadingskillson a dailybasis. Unfortunately,a large percentage of the U. S. population has some difficultywith the reading process. According to the National Assessment of EducationalAchievement Report (1985), approximately6% of 9-year-oldchildrenare unable to demonstrate rudimentary reading skillsand, at of 16% students fail to attain even inter17, age mediate reading skills. In special education the numbers are even more discouraging. For example, it is estimated that 75% of all students with learning disabilities (LD) have a reading disability as their primary disorder (Kavale& Forness, 1985), and by high school the majorityof students with LD are only
86 Learning Disability Quarterly

able to read at a fourth-grade reading level (Deshler& Schumaker,1988). Typically,students who exhibit reading disabilities have difficultywith a variety of reading skills including phonological awareness (i.e., blending and segmenting phonetic sounds), discerningthe syllables that make up words, acquiring basic sight vocabulary,reading fluently, applying context clues, noting inconsistencies in text, and using appropriate comprehension-monitoring strategies (Bos & Filip, 1984; Horn, O'Donnell, & Vitulano, 1983; Smith, 1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1986). These problems often manifest themselves as children try to accomplish everyday learning tasks such as reading directions, completing worksheets, reading textbooks, and learning new vocabulary. Other demands placed on students in integrated settings serve to furthertax their already JOSEPH R. BOYLE, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois Universityat Edwardsville.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

limited reading skills. For example, Schumaker and Deshler (1984) found reading-related demands in integrated settings to include: following written and oral directions, skimming reading selections, locating informationin textbooks, recalling information for tests, reading at grade level, completing homework assignments, and locating answers to questions. Further compounding the demands placed on students, McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, and Lee (1994) noted that few adaptations are made to meet the individualneeds of students with mild disabilitiesin mainstreamedsettings, thereby increasing the degree of difficulty for these students as they try to maintain minimal achievement levels in integratedsettings. Reading comprehension difficulties among students having learning disabilitiesor mild mental retardationmay be due in large part to their lack of metacognitive and strategy use (Scruggs & Laufenberg, 1986; Swanson, 1989a; Wong, 1978; Wong & Jones, 1982) or their use of inefficient strategies (Swanson, 1989b). Indeed, if students are not using skills and strategies as they read, or if they are using them inefficiently, difficultiescan occur as students assimilate, organize, and critiqueinformation.Such difficulties not only prevent the acquisition of literal information (lower level), but also interferewith inference making and testing (higher level) (Winne, Graham, & Prock, 1993; Wong, 1979, 1987). This is an important point because inferences occur frequentlyin text (12 to 15 inferences per statement in typical reading passages for children); hence, the ability to make inferences plays an important, if not essential, role in understanding written language (Graesser, 1981; Winne et al., 1993). Regardless of the specific causes of metacognitive or strategy deficits or their effects upon student recall of different aspects of text information (e.g., literal, inferential, or critical), researchers have agreed that students with mild disabilities can improve their academic performance if they are first taught how to use specific techniques or strategies that enable them to better organize, elaborate, and encode information from text (Jensen & Rohwer, 1963; Ryan, Weed, & Short, 1986). Strategies and cognitive frameworks, such as cognitive mapping, serve this purpose by imposing structure through the organization and se-

quencing of information (Kavale, Forness, & Bender, 1987) and through making the important parts of the task explicit (Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker,& Clark, 1991). In this investigation, a strategy format was paired with another effective instructionaltechnique known as "cognitivemapping." According to Darch and Eaves (1986), cognitive mapping is the "use of lines, arrows, and spatial arrangements to describe text content, structure, and key conceptual relationships"(p. 310). Cognitive maps, also referredto as "cognitive organizers" or "visual displays," allow students to visually arrange the component ideas and details from text so that the implicitrelationships between ideas and details are made explicit. To date, much descriptive literaturehas been written on the topic of cognitive mapping (Aaronson, 1985; Gold, 1984; Heimlich & Pittleman, 1986; Pehrsson & Denner, 1988; Pehrsson & Robinson, 1988); however, specific research on this topic has been sparse. While a review of the literaturedid reveal several studies that have examined the effects of cognitive maps on comprehension among childrenwith mild disabilities (e.g., Bos & Anders, 1987; Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch & Eaves, 1986; Englert & Mariage, 1991; McCoy, Maag, & Rucker, 1989; Scanlon, Duran, Reyes, & Gallego, 1992; Welch, 1992), no studies have specifically investigated whether students with mild disabilities can independently generate and use cognitive maps during reading to enhance their literal and inferentialcomprehension. This lack of empiricaldata is surprisingin light of research that supports the use of student-generated maps over teacher-generated (expert)maps academic tasks & during (McCagg Dansereau, 1991; Moore & Readence, 1980). If studentsare the ones creating the maps, it makes sense that their understanding of importantideas and the rebetween ideas should be enhanced lationships & (Darch,Carnine, Kameenui, 1986). Therefore, the cognitivemapping strategyin this studytaught students how to produce their own maps as they read short passages. Among studies involving students with mild disabilities,a number have used teacher or peer activities to aid students in map completion or correction. For example, in a study by Englert and Mariage (1991) cognitive maps were develVolume 19, Spring 1996 87

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

oped duringreading activitiesthrough reciprocal teaching methods. Students were either guided through all of the instructional steps by the teacher or assisted by peers. The results demonstrated that students who used cognitive maps improved on measures of total recall and recall of main ideas. While this technique is promising, questions remain as to its effectiveness when used independent of teacher or peer support. In two studies, Darch and his colleagues used teacher-madecognitivemaps to enhance recallof lecturematerial.In the firststudy, Darchand Carnine (1986) used cognitive mapping with fourth-, fifth-,and sixth-gradestudentswith LD in science and social studies class lectures. The students in the experimental group received teacher-made cognitive maps prior to instruction, which they followed during instructionon science and social studies topics. Compared to the control group, those students who used cognitive maps during instruction scored higher on immediate recall probe tests, on a delayed recallposttest, and on a student attitudemeasure. However, despite these positive effects from the use of cognitive maps, the researchers reported that students did not score better than the control group on a transfer test (used to measure whether the study skills wouldtransferto a new situation). In the second study, Darch and Eaves (1986) also used studentswith LD; however,this time the subjectswere high school students. The students in the experimental group received cognitive maps of the day's lesson, while students in the control group reliedon the lecturealone. All subjects were then taught three different science lessons and administered unit tests (usedto assess immediate recall), a the posttest (used to assess delayed recall),a maintenancetest (similarto the posttest except different questions were used), and a transfertest (used to measure whether students in the visual display group transferredearlier learnedstudyskillsto a new situation). Again, the results were similarto those of the previous study (Darch & Carnine, 1986), with students in the mapping group scoring much higher on the unit tests and the posttest than the text group; however, the gains in the maintenance test and the transfertest were not statistically significantwhen compared with the control (text)group. While the results from these two studies indicate that teacher-madecognitive maps used dur88 Learning Disability Quarterly

ing lecturesare a promisingtechniquefor increasing recall,the implicationsof student-madecognitive maps on lecture material have not been tested. In another study, Bos and Anders (1990) taught students with LD to use one of four interventions (a definitionalinstructionactivity of vocabulary terms, a semantic map of vocabulary words, a semantic feature analysis, or a semantic/syntactic feature analysis as part of discussion-oriented strategies) to improve vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Following each reading assignment, the students and teacher discussed the passage while trying to activate prior and instatiate knowledge through making predictions and determining relationships between and among ideas. After treatment, students who used mapping or a feature analysis scored higher on vocabulary and reading comprehension measures than those students who were taught using definitional instruction. While this study shows promise for interactivemapping or feature analyses over definitional instruction, certain questions remain about what role activation of prior knowledge, instatiationof knowledge, or predicting outcomes had on outcomes. In addition, questions remain about how teacher input affected students' mapping, which in turn may have influencedthe outcome measures. Finally, in three studies conducted by Horton, Lovitt, and Bergerud (1990), students with LD used one of three types of organizersto improve their reading comprehension of textbook passages. In the first study, students with LD constructed graphic organizers during teacher-directed activities. In the second study, students with LD constructedgraphic organizersthat contained referentialcues directing students to look on specific pages of the textbook to find the information. This information was then used to complete the organizer. Finally, in the third study, students with LD were instructedto construct graphic organizers according to a list of clues that contained facts and ideas that completed the organizer.In all three studies, students with LD performed significantlybetter than their counterpartswith LD who participatedin a selfstudy comparison group. Again, these studies provide additional evidence that graphic (cognitive) organizers are more effective than self-study; however, ques-

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tions remain as to the effectiveness of cognitive organizers when used independent of teacher cue, clues, or direction. Moreover, the authors recommended that future research investigate the effects of teaching students to use organizers across a variety of student- and teacher-directed activities. In light of the research on cognitive mapping techniques, few studies have examined the effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on reading comprehension. While studies conducted with reading material afford an encouraging glimpse of the role that cognitive organizers play in improving memory of written information, a much clearer picture has yet to emerge of how cognitive organizers interact with different levels of reading comprehension (literal,inferential, or critical)when used independent of teacher input. First, it is not clear whether cognitive organizers are effective for either literalor inferentialinformation, since all the studies previously cited failed to differentiatebetween the differentlevels of comprehension.Second, it is not clearwhether cognitive organizers could be highly effective if used independent of teacher and peer input. Third,it is not clear how studentswould perform if the maps were used independentof other effective teaching techniques (i.e., activating prior knowledge or using written summaries), since many of the previouslycited studies incorporated these techniquesas part of largermapping packages. Fourth,no studiesthat used cognitive maps in reading examined the metacognitiveeffects of mapping on the readingprocess. The present study was designed to answer a series of questions about the effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the reading process. First, can students with mild disabilitiesindependently use the cognitive mapping strategy to successfully map the important components of reading passages? Second, can students with mild disabilities who were taught the cognitive mapping strategy improve their literaland/or inferential comprehension of material? Third, does the use of the cognitive mapping strategy lead to changes in the students' metacognitive knowledge of reading? Fourth, do students who used the strategy improve their attitudes toward reading? And fifth, do students who used the strategy improve their comprehension on standardizedmeasures?

METHOD Subjects The sample (see Table 1), as describedby recommendations set forth by the 1993 Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) Research Committee (Rosenberget al., 1993), was scaled back from 36 to 30 middle school students through a pairwise matching procedure in order to reduce error variance (Borg & Gall, 1979). Students were matched on the control variables of categorical classification (LD or EMR), grade level, and pretest scores from the silent reading comprehension portion of the Formal Reading Inventory (FRI)(Wiederholt,1986). This pairwise matching procedure produced 15 pairs of students who had identical grade and categorical classifications and nearly identical FRI pretest

Table 1 Characteristics of the Control and Experimental Groups

Control Group (N- 15) 10 5 7 7 1 5 10 4 4 7 Experimental Group (N- 15) 12 3 7 5 3 5 10 4 4 7 80 (11.9)

Gender Ethnicity

Male Female

tDisability tGrade

African-Am. Anglo Hispanic EMR LD Sixth Seventh Eighth Mean (SD)

76 (9.4) SpecificAcademicAchievement** Reading Achievement Mean 67.9 (SD) (7.6) Math Achievement Writing Achievement Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 66.3 (10.6) 63.9 (9.9) 81.7 (5.13)

Intelligence FullScale*

71.4 (9.9) 73.3 (11.7) 70.1 (10.4) 81.7 (4.88)

tFRI- SRQ*** Mean (SD)

* Scores on WISC-RIQ scores reported. ** Specific Academic Achievement on Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Academic Clusters - standardscores reported. *** Pretest scores - Silent ReadingQuotients (standard scores) were reported. t Matchvariables.

Volume 19, Spring 1996

89

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

scores (within +/- 5 quotient points). (The remaining six students were eliminated from the study because suitable matches could not be found.) Once matched, students were randomly assigned to either a control or an experimental group. Further, to minimize any initial differences, students were selected from one of two schools that were similar in nature (i.e., socioeconomic level, minority composition, location, and district). Middle school students were selected as the target population because previous research has demonstrated that these students typically have acquired the necessary decoding skills to read fluently;therefore, they are better able to focus their working memory on comprehending what is read (Paris & Myers, 1988). Further, Wong and Wong (1986) contended that in younger students with LD, decoding often consumes much of their attention and effort, thus preventing them from using higher order metacognitive skills. The sample included students who had either learning disabilities(LD) (20 students) or educable mental retardation (EMR)(10 students), as identifiedby the local school districtand Kansas state guidelines. Students identified as LD had documentation of a significant discrepancy between students' current achievement and aptitude, according to the regression formula or the simple standard score differences as prescribed in the Kansas LD guidelines (KansasState Board of Education, 1991). Students identifiedas EMR met the criteriaof mild mental retardationas described in the "Manualon Terminology in Mental Retardation"(Kansas State Board of Education, 1991). Despite the slight differences in achievement scores, no significant differences were found between the experimental or the control group on pretest measures (i.e., essentially,both groups were statistically equivalent). Also, to be included in the study, all participants had to meet the following reading criteria: (a) Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) comprehension scores at least 1.5 years below grade level; (b) word attack skills, as measured by the StructuralAnalysis subtest of the SDRT, at least a 1.0 grade equivalent (G.E.); and (c) past reading achievement scores at least 1.5 years below grade level as measured by a recent achievement test (Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test or Kauffman Tests of Achievement).
90 Learning Disability Quarterly

(Table2 furtherdescribes the sample in terms of meeting the qualifyingstandards.) Setting The students attended one of two middle schools in an urban district within a large metropolitan city. Each classroom was staffed with a full-timeteacher and a paraprofessional, both of whom were present throughout the study. The teachers did not directlyparticipatein any strategy training (i.e., the primaryinvestigator conducted all the training throughout the study), however. The physical arrangement of both classrooms was similar in that each had rows of student desks and chairs, with the teacher's chair and desk situated in the front of the classroom. Materials Each reading passage used in the investigation was approximately 400 words long and dealt with differenttopics. Passages, with accompanying questions, were selected from the "Timed Readings" series by Jamestown Publishers. Although the publishers of the series have specified grade levels for each booklet, these grade levels did not accurately match the readability level of each passage, as measured by the Fry ReadabilityGraph (Fry, 1980). Although other valid and reliablemeasures exist for determining the readabilityof text (e.g., the Harris-Jacobson formula, Harris & Jacobson, 1980; the Fog Index, Gunning, 1979), the Fry Graph was chosen

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

because it is a valid measure for third- through ninth-grade written materials (Fry, 1980) and can accurately detect readabilityto within one grade level (Fusaro, 1988). Based upon the readability of each passage using the Fry ReadabilityGraph (Fry, 1977), appropriate readability(grade)levels were assigned to each passage prior to strategy instruction. This procedure was warranteddue to the risk of relying on reading passages that in some instances would have been several grade levels too difficultin readability.Using materials with high in the initial stage readabilitylevels, particularly of strategy instruction,may interfere with or delay strategyacquisition. Dependent Measures The measures used to assess students included a pretest and a posttest of the Formal Reading Inventory (FRI)- alternate forms - (Wiederholt, 1986); the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) (Karlsen & Gardner, 1985) (alternate form); curriculum-basedreading questions (CB reading comprehension measure); and a metacognitive awareness measure (Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984). Two other dependent variables included a review of students' cognitive maps to determine the accuracy with which students followed the strategy (i.e., a main idea, three details for each idea, circles around the main idea, and links to the details) and a posttest of attitudes from the Rhody Reading Attitude Assessment (Rhody& Alexander, 1980). FRI. The silent reading comprehension subtest of the FRI(Wiederholt,1986) provideda reliable comprehension measure on reading passages. (This measure also served as one of the match variables.) For purposes of this study, only the Silent Reading subtest of the FRI was administered;and, in order to maintain consistency in the reportingof scores, only silent reading quotients (SRQ) and standard scores were reported. SDRT. Because the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT) (Karlsen & Gardner, 1985) is a group-administeredtest, is time efficient and provides alternativeforms, it was chosen as the standardized timed measure. The Reading Comprehension section of the SDRT was administeredto all students to determine if their performance varied due to the use of a timed measure. Further,the StructuralAnalysis

section of the SDRT was administeredto determine the extent of students'word attack skills. CB reading measure. Immediately after reading each passage, students responded to 15 comprehension questions (the CB reading measure)pertainingto the content of the passage. Ten to the questionswere of a literalnature (referring main ideas and details of the passage), five of an inferential nature (referring to informationnot explicitlystated). Literalquestions were those questions that requiredstudentsto repeat or recognize informationexactlyas presentedin the text. Inferential questions, on the other hand, requiredstudents to mentallymanipulateinformationin an attempt to recognize the correct response. In other studentsto inwords,this type of questionrequired fer (or reason out) relationshipsbetween two or more ideas or pieces of information that were not statedexplicitly & Sipay, 1990). (Harris Student responses were compared with an answer key and the correct answers were multiplied by 100 to determine the percentage of correct responses. Because students were administered two below-grade level reading passages (pretest) and two on-grade level reading passages (posttest), scores from each level were averaged (i.e., both below-grade level reading passages were averaged, as were both on-grade reading level passages). Questionnaire. To assess students' metacognitive and strategy awareness, a metacognitive questionnaire (Paris et al., 1984) was administeredas a pretest and posttest to all students. According to Paris et al. (1984), their metacognitive scale answer key allows for reliable scoring by awarding points for each response on a 1-to-4 scale. This predetermined scale awards a high number of points (4) for responses that are more strategic or metacognitive in nature and a low number of points (1) for responses that are more heuristic.Thus, high total scores indicate more strategic and metacognitive awareness during the reading process. Unfortunately, the technical adequacy of this instrument was not reported by the authors. Rhody Reading Attitude Assessment. This instrument(Rhody& Alexander, 1980) was administered to determine if students' attitudes toward reading improved as a result of mapping strategy instruction. The measure, which consists of 25 questions pertainingto students' feelings about reading (range 25 to 125), was adVolume 19, Spring 1996 91

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ministered to all the students. Because attitude scales could sensitize or alert students to the nature of the treatment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), and therefore pose a threat to internal validity,this assessment instrumentwas administered only as a posttest. Comparison of maps. Finally, to ensure that students' cognitive maps were accurately constructed, each student's map was compared with a master map and scored accordingly.The scoring procedures included awarding the student 1 point for each main idea (writing key words about the main idea), 1 point for writing each detail, 1 point for each circle around a main idea, and 1 point for each line connecting the main idea with a detail. Students were not penalized for including extra lines or circles on their finished maps. A possible 40 total points could be earned. Students' summed score was divided by the total points possible and multipliedby 100 to obtain a percentage of mapping accuracy. To ensure that this dependent variable was a reliable measure, interscoreragreement data were taken. Independent Variable The cognitive mapping strategy incorporated the use of the mnemonic "TRAVEL,"which taught students, step by step, how to construct cognitive maps for use during reading (see Figure 1). Because the act of writing out informationon paper is potentially reactive (i.e., simply writing out ideas during reading may change comprehension scores), the control students were given blank paper and permitted to write out passage informationon the paper as they read.

TRAVEL 1. Topic:Writedown the topic and circleit. 2. Read:Reada paragraph. 3. Ask:Ask whatthe mainidea and threedetails are and writethem down. 4. Verify: the mainidea by circling it and Verify its details. linking 5. Examine: Examinethe next paragraph andAsk and Verify again. 6. Link: Whenfinishedwiththe story,linkall circles. Figure 1. Cognitivemappingstrategy.

General Procedures Fifteen students were administered pretests, taught to use the cognitive mapping strategy on reading passages, and administered posttests. The other 15 students were administered the same pretests, posttests, and reading passages, but did not receive training on the cognitive mapping strategy. Both groups were provided with pencils, blank sheets of paper, and assigned reading passages. Procedures for Strategy Instruction The four phases of strategy instructioninclude the pretest phase, the introductory and mnemonic phase, the strategy practice phase, and the posttest phase. Similar training procedures have been used by others, most notably the Universityof Kansas Center for Research on Learning. The total length of the study was 11 sessions, with a frequency of three to five sessions per week. Phase 1: pretest phase. Four pretests (the FRI, the SDRT, CB reading measures, and a metacognitive awareness measure) were administered to all students during this phase. The phase lasted for two (50-minute)sessions. Phase 2a: introductory and mnemonic phase. This phase also lasted for two (50minute) sessions, during which the strategy was described and modeled. Students were then assessed on their knowledge of the mnemonic "TRAVEL." During the first 20 minutes of the initial session, the investigatorbrieflydescribedthe cognitive mapping strategy and reviewed the importance of accuratelycomprehending material. At this time, students were asked why it was important to comprehend accurately. Student responses, while varied, were appropriate, including such statements as "beingable to understand what is going on," "helps you to know stuff for tests," and "so you can remember the information for later." Next, the investigator described in detail the strategy and informed students that it would help them improve their comprehension of material they read. The investigatorasked students to tell him when it would be appropriate to use this strategy. Typical student responses included "when you read the newspaper," "when you read your history book," and "when you read magazines."The investigatoralso asked students to think of situations when it would not be ap-

92

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

propriate to use this strategy. Again, students came up with varied but appropriate responses and supportingreasons. During this portion of the training, the investigator distributed materials (i.e., the student "TRAVEL"form, the cue card defining main ideas and details, and a sample reading passage) needed to learn the strategy and then described each step of the cognitive mapping strategy to the students. Using the main idea and detail cue sheets, the investigatorreviewed how to find the main ideas and details of a paragraph. Finally,during the last 30 minutes of the session, the investigatorused "thinkingaloud"techniquesas he modeled the cognitivemapping strategy with a sample reading passage. Throughout the trainingsession, directinstructional techniques were incorporatedto ensure that students maintained high on-task rates and responded to teacher queries. Once the passage was completely mapped out, the investigator instructed studentsto sit quietlyand studythe mapping strategy. Before studentsleft the session, they were instructedto study the strategy for homework and told that they would be expected to recite the strategy,with no teacher assistance, to 100% accuracyduringthe next session. During the second session, each student was taken to a quiet section of the room and asked to recite the strategy as the investigator and classroom teacher recorded responses. All students reached 100% mastery on their recitation of the strategy steps duringthis session. Phase 3a: strategy practice phase. Once students correctly recited the mnemonic with 100% accuracy on three of five trials, they were instructedto begin mapping out the first reading passage (the first of two below-gradelevel reading passages). At this point in the investigation and throughout its duration, students were not permitted to use any previously introduced cue sheets. During the first two training sessions of this phase, students practicedmapping passages that were one grade level below their current grade level based on readability levels (hereafter referred to as "below-gradelevel passages"). The third and fourth sessions consisted of students mapping out reading passages commensurate with their current grade level. Finally, after the four sessions of the practice phase were completed, all students were posttested.

It should be noted that only during the first strategy practice phase were students given feedback concerning their application of the strategy on reading passages (i.e., producing accurate and complete maps). Once this session was complete, and throughout the remainder of the study, no reinforcement or corrective feedback was provided to the students on their use of the cognitive mapping strategy. Phase 2b and 3b: instruction in the control condition. While students in the experimental group were removed from their classroom during the two strategy instructionsessions, students in the control condition remained in their classes and worked on separate reading assignments provided by their teachers. As students in the control group worked on below-grade level and on-gradelevel passages (identical to passages used by the students in the experimentalgroup), they were permittedto take notes or create outlines as they read each passage. Phase 4: posttest phase. During the posttest phase, all studentswere posttestedon the awarenessmeaFRI,the SDRT,the metacognitive sure, and the Rhody Secondary ReadingAttitude Assessment.This phase lastedthree sessions. Interscorer Agreement Throughout the study, interscorer reliability checks were conducted to monitor the primary investigator's reliabilitywhen scoring students' maps. The secondary scorer, who was naive to the purpose of the study, was trained by the primary investigatoruntil 90% agreement between scorers was reached. The secondary scorer then graded one-third of the student maps (20 in all), chosen at random. Reliabilitywas calculated by dividingthe number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Fidelity of Training To ensure that the strategy trainingwas equivalent for all students, the primary investigator followed scripted trainingprocedures and used a strategymonitoringchecklist.The strategy monitoring checklist denoted each step and substep involved in strategy instruction. As the primary investigatortaught each step and substep to students, he indicatedit on the checklist. Experimental Design An experimental group-control group matched-subjects design (Kerlinger, 1986) was used to compare the experimental group, who
Volume 19, Spring 1996 93

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

were exposed to the cognitive mapping strategy, with subjectsin the control condition. RESULTS Data Analysis Because more than one dependent variable was used in conjunction with the independent variable and because students were matched on pretest scores, grade, and disability,a matchedpairs multivariateanalysis of variance (matchedpairs MANOVA)was the preferreddata analysis technique (Stevens, 1992). Using this analysis, changes in students' matched difference scores (which were either positive or negative gains) were compared. The original scores were expressed as percentages (i.e., if students correctly answered 7 out of 10 literal questions, they would earn a score of 70%). Using difference scores from literal belowgrade level measures, inferential below-grade level measures, literal on-grade level measures, inferential on-grade level measures, and FRI Silent Reading quotients, statistical significance was obtained with Wilks' Lambda=.53, F(5, 24)= 4.31, p=.006.

Using these same five measures, another multivariate analysis of interaction between disabilities (LD and EMR)and groups (experimentaland control) yielded an interaction that was not significant, Wilks'=.79, F(1,26)=1.19, p=.346. Because there was no interaction, students, whether LD or EMR,were treated essentiallythe same throughoutthe rest of the analyses. Results of Univariate ANOVA Table 3 displays the mean difference scores (+ or - gains) for both the experimental and the control group. As shown, the average gain on literal questions in the experimental group ranged from 24% points with on-grade level passages to 26% points with below-gradelevel passages. Moreover, gains on inferential measures ranged from 19% points with on-grade level passages to 39% points with below-grade level passages. Conversely, students in the control group made relativelysmall gains on below-grade level passages (4% points on literal questions; 1% point on-grade level inferential; 16% points on below-grade level inferentialquestions) and performed very poorly on posttests of on-grade

U I

Table 3 Results of Univariate ANOVA for Difference

Measures and Group
Literal BelowGrade Level Experimental Control Inferential BelowGrade Level Experimental Control Literal OnGrade Level Experimental Control Inferential OnGrade Level Experimental Control Formal Reading Inventory Experimental Control F< .05.

Scores
F Value
5.94*

Mean
25.67 3.67

SD
18.41 29.73

Power
.65

Effect Size
.17

38.67 16.00

30.44 27.47

4.95*

.54

.14

24.33 -5.00

27.46 12.68

13.79*

.95

.33

21.33 1.33

22.32 18.07

7.27*

.74

.21

2.60 1.33

3.64 3.64

1.22

.19

.04

94

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

level literal questions (a 5% point loss). Finally, all students made minimal gains on the FRI; however, these percentage point gains were not significantat the .05 level. In terms of actual scores from posttests, students in the experimental group exhibited mean below-grade level scores (literal and inferential) of 74% points and 61% points, and mean ongrade level scores (literaland inferential)of 74% points and 48% points, respectively. A power analysis yielded a power level of .91 and an effect size equal to .473. This effect size is considered large with a MANOVA that uses five dependent variables (Stevens, 1990). Table 3 contains the univariate effect sizes for each measure. According to Stevens (1990), an effect size (partialeta squared)equal to or larger than .14 is considered large. Results of Other Measures Despite the substantialincreases in the curriculum-based measures, the results from the other measures were less than encouraging. From separate t-tests conducted on each of these measures, no significant differences were found on the metacognitive questionnaire (t=-.52, df=14, p=.611), the Rhody Attitude Scale (t=1.75, df= 14, p=.107), or the timed SDRT (t=.89, df=14, p=.402). Results of Interscorer Reliability From the entire investigation, a total of 20 randomlychosen maps (a thirdof all maps) were checked to assess interscorer reliability of assigned points for mapping accuracy. Interscorer agreement was 95%. Mapping Accuracy To ensure that students were accurately mapping out the information from the reading passages, data on the accuracy of their maps were recorded. From this information, it was determined that the mean accuracy score was 96% (range = 67% to 100%). In other words, on average, students were able correctly to identify and write the main ideas and details on their maps 96% of the time. DISCUSSION When viewed in terms of effect size (.485) and power level (.93), this investigationdemonstrated that once students with mild disabilities were taught the cognitive mapping strategy,they could increase both their literal and their inferential knowledge of short readingpassages. These find-

ings concur with previousinvestigationsof the effects of cognitive mapping on reading comprehension, with posttest scores in the 70% range for literal comprehension (Horton et al., 1990). However, the study differs in that the average magnitudeof change was large (an average 25% points for literalcomprehension and 30% points for inferentialcomprehension). The present investigationextends previous research on cognitive organizers (Bos & Anders, 1990; Darch & Eaves, 1986; Englert & Mariage, 1991; Horton et al., 1990) through its use of an independent strategy by which students with mild disabilities could improve not only literal, but inferential comprehension. Moreover, the study demonstrated that students with mild disabilitiescould independently select and relate important ideas from text to form an accurate cognitive map. As indicatedby scores on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Karlsen& Gardner,1985) scores, there were no significantdifferences between pre- and posttesting after the intervention was introduced. It appears from students' test protocols that they did not attempt to map out the passages. This observationappears to be in line with current research, which demonstrates that students with LD often fail to generalize or transfer newly learned skills to novel situations (Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead, & Hale, 1989; Wong, 1994). In addition, some researchers claim that studentswith LD often perform poorly on standardized tests due to careless mistakes (e.g., skipped test questions or random guessing) (Idol,1987), or simplybecause they lack the necessary test-takingstrategiesor skillsfor successful knowledge demonstration (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1988; Scruggs & Tolfa, 1985). One final shortcoming of this interventionwas that students were not taught to generalize the technique to other academic areas and materials. Futurestudies should determine if transferof the cognitive mapping strategy to other materials is possible. In brief, teachers could promote the transferof a strategy to new materialsand situations in two ways: (a) mediate student mindfulness duringstrategy instruction,and (b)train students in activities that would promote generalizationof the strategy to novel situations (Wong, 1994). More specifically,teachers should encourage students to modify the cognitive mapping strategy, when appropriate,to meet the deVolume 19, Spring 1996 95

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

mands of the task and instructstudents to think divergentlyabout applying it to novel situations. For example, for complex reading material, students should break down passages into manageable units that could be mapped out in sufficient detail. For timed passages, students should be instructed to think about how ideas and details relate, rather than physicallymap out the information. Many other modifications could be made; however, future research should first be conducted to validate these recommendations. (Refer to Wong [1994] for a more detailed discussion of strategytransfer.) Indeed, as others have pointed out (see Horton et al. [1990] for a more detailed discussion), not enough research focuses on the effects of cognitive mapping on the learning of students with mild disabilities. Further study is needed, therefore, to distinguishthe type of organizer or map that would lead students to a deeper understanding of content (factuallearning vs. inferential thinkingvs. criticalthought). It might also be helpful to incorporate differentkinds of comprehension measures (e.g., story retells, written summaries, etc.) to assess the qualitativedifferences in student responses as attributedto the specific type of organizer used. Dynamic assessment probes could provide researchers with insight into how cognitive organizers aid students' organization and memory of content during the reading process. Since reading is such a complex process (see Idol [1988] for an in-depth discussion of the complexities of reading),dynamic measures could aid our conceptualizationof the problems students with LD encounter and the type of intervention or organizer needed to remediate weaknesses. Research could also assess the effects of multiple organizers on materials of a specific text structure(e.g., exposition, causation, collection, problem/solution, and comparison/contrast) (Taylor& Beach, 1984), thereby differentiating which organizers would be most useful to students given the nature of the reading task. It has alreadybeen demonstratedthat teaching nondisabled students to recognize text structure improves their comprehension (Richgels, McGee, Lomax, & Sheard, 1987; Taylor & Beach, 1984; Taylor & Samuels, 1983). Such knowledge not only appears to aid recall of textual information, but also shows promise for enhancing written summaries and compositions
96 Learning Disability Quarterly

(Richgels et al., 1987; Taylor & Beach, 1984). If this holds true for students with disabilities, which research has yet to demonstrate, then the knowledge of text structurepaired with the appropriate organizer could prove to be a powerful remediationtechnique. In conclusion, cognitive mapping offers aid for promise as a highly effective instructional students with mild disabilitiesin both special education and mainstreamed settings. Teaching students how to use different types of studentgenerated cognitive organizers, such as cognitive mapping, during academic tasks is initially time-consuming;however, long-term benefits of such instruction outweigh the initial costs (in terms of time), as evidenced by the results from this investigation. In addition, cognitive organizers not only offer students an opportunity to mediate and facilitatethe learning of basic content from text as it applies to their own knowledge base, cognitive organizers also have the potential to serve as an intermediate step in more complex learning situations (i.e., they can serve as a link between newly presented information and higher level thought processes). Because cognitive organizers offer so much potential for students with learning problems, it is essential that researchers continue to explore this domain of effective teaching techniques. REFERENCES S. (1985). The use of studymaps and viAaronson, sual mnemotechnics as an aid to recall.Reading World, 24, 97-105. Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, M.T.,Milstead, M., & Hale, C. (1989). General skills: Relations problem-solving between metacognition and strategicprocessing. 12, 57-70. Learning Disability Quarterly, Borg, W., & Gall,M. (1979). Educationalresearch: Introduction. NewYork: Longman. P. (1987). Semantic feature Bos, C., & Anders, analysis: An interactive teachingstrategyfor facilitating fromtext. LearningDisabilities learning Focus, 3, 55-59. Bos, C.S., & Anders,P.L. (1990). Effectsof interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learnof junior-high learning andreading comprehension ing disabled students. Learning Disability 13, 31-42. Quarterly, D. (1984).Comprehension Bos, C., & Filip, monitoring in learning disabled and averagestudents. strategies Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 229-233. Campbell,D., & Stanley,J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240-246. Darch, C., Carnine, D.W., & Kameenui, E.J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction.Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275-295. Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual displays to increase comprehension of high school learning disabledstudents.Exceptional Children, 20, 309-318. Deshler, D., & Schumaker,J. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In J.L. Graden & M.J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 319-411). Washington, DC: NationalAssociationof School Psychologists. Ellis, E.S., Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1991). An instructionalmodel for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1-24. Englert, C., & Mariage, T. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading "posse." Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123-138. Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability scale. Providence, RI:Jamestown Publishers. Fry, E. (1980). Comments on the preceding Harris and Jacobson comparison of the Fry, Spache, and Harris-Jacobsonreadabilityformulas. The Reading Teacher, 33, 942-926. Fusaro, J. (1988). Applying statisticalrigor to a validation study of the Fry ReadabilityGraph. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 44-48. Gold, P. (1984). Cognitive mapping. Academic Therapy, 19, 277-284. Graesser, A.C. (1981). Prose composition beyond the word. New York:Springer-Verlag. Gunning, R. (1979). Fog index of a passage. Academic Therapy, 14, 489-491. Harris, A., & Jacobson, M. (1980). A comparison of the Fry, Spache, and Harris-Jacobson readability formulasfor primarygrades. The Reading Teacher, 33, 920-923. Harris, A., & Sipay, E. (1990). How to increase reading ability. New York:Longman. Heimlich, J., & Pittleman, S. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Horn, W., O'Donnell,J., & Vitulano,L. (1983). Longterm follow-upstudies of learning disabledpersons. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 542-555. Horton, S., Lovitt,T., & Bergerud,D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizersfor three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12-29. Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehensive strategy for both skilled and unskilledreaders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205. Idol, L. (1988). Jonny can't read: Does the fault lie with the book, the teacher, or Jonny? Remedial and Special Education, 9, 8-25.

Jensen, A., & Rohwer,W. (1963). Verbalmediation in paired-associateand serial learning.Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 1, 346-352. Kansas State Board of Education.(1991). State regulations for special education. Topeka: KSBE. Karlsen,B., & Gardner,E. (1985). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich. Kavale, B., & Forness, T. (1985). Learning disability and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox? Remedial and Special Education, 6, 12-23. Kavale, B., Forness, T., & Bender, C. (1987). Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Little Brown Book Co. Kerlinger,F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. McIntosh,R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Haager, D., & Lee, 0. (1994). Observations of students with learningdisabilitiesin general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249-261. McCagg, E., & Dansereau, D. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 317-324. McCoy, K.M., Maag, J.W., & Rucker,S. (1989). Semantic mapping as a communication tool in seriously emotionally handicapped classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 226-235. Moore, D.W., & Readence, J.E. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effect of graphic organizers on learning from text. In M.L. Kamil & A.L. Moe (Eds.), Twenty-ninth yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 145-152). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference. National Education Assessment of Educational Achievement. (1985). Reading performance trends, 1971-1984: Their significance. Princeton, NJ: NAEA. Paris, S., Cross, D., & Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning:A program to improve children's readingawarenessand comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239-1252. Paris,S., & Myers,M. (1988). Comprehensionmonitoring, memory, and study strategiesof good and poor readers.Journal of Reading Behavior,13, 5-22. Pehrsson, R., & Denner, P. (1988). Semantic organizers: Implicationsfor reading and writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 8, 24-37. Pehrsson, R., & Robinson, H. (1988). The semantic organizer approach to reading and writing instruction. Rockville,MD: Aspen. Rhody, R., & Alexander,J. (1980). A scale for assessing attitudes towards reading in secondary schools. Journal of Reading, 23, 609-614. Richgels, D., McGee, L., Lomax, R., & Sheard, C. Effects on (1987). Awareness of four text structures: recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177-196. Rosenberg, M., Bott, D., Majsterek,D., Chiang, B., Gartland, D., Wesson, C., Graham, S., Smith-

Volume 19, Spring 1996

97

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Myles, B., Miller,M., Swanson, H.L., Bender, W., Rivera, D., & Wilson, R. (1992). Minimum standards for the description of participantsin learning disabilitiesresearch. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 65-70. Ryan, E., Weed, K., & Short, E. (1986). Cognitive behavior modification: Promoting active, self-regulatory learning styles. In J. Torgesen & B. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspective on learning disabilities (pp. 367-397). New York: Academic Press. Scanlon, D., Duran, G., Reyes, E., & Gallego, M. (1992). Interactivesemantic mapping: An interactive approach to enhancing LD students' content area comprehension. Learning Disabilities Practice and Research, 7, 142-146. Schumaker,J., & Deshler, D. (1984). Setting demand variables: a major factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topics in Language Disorders, 4, 22-40. Scruggs, T.E., & Laufenberg, R. (1986). Transformational mnemonic strategies for retarded learners. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 165-173. M.A. (1988). Are learnScruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, A reviewof recent ing disabledstudents"Test-wise"?: research.Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 87-97. Scruggs, T., & Tolfa, D. (1985). Improvingthe testtaking skills of learning disabled students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 847-850. Smith, C.R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. SPSS/PC [Computer software]. (1990). Chicago: SPSS Inc. Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. Swanson, H. L. (1989a). The effects of central processing strategies on learning disabled, mildly retarded, average, and gifted children's elaborative encoding abilities.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 370-397. Swanson, H.L. (1989b). Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3-15. Taylor,B.M., & Beach, R. (1984). The effects of text structureon middle-gradestudents' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146. use of Taylor,B.M., & Samuels, S.J. (1983). Children's text structurein recallof expositorymaterial.American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517-528.

Torgesen, J.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner:Educationalimplications.Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45-52. Vellutino,F, & Scanlon, D. (1986). Experimentalevidence for the effects of instructionalbias on word identification.Exceptional Children, 53, 145-155. Wechsler,D. (1981). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASEstrategy:A metacognitive learning strategy for improvingthe paragraph writing of students with mild learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 119-128. Wiederholt, J.L. (1986) Formal Reading Inventory. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Winne, P.H., Graham, L., & Prock, L. (1993). A model of poor readers' text-based inferencing: Effects of explanatory feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 53-66. Wong, B. (1978). The effects of directivecues on the organization of memory and recall in good and poor readers. The Journal of Educational Research, 72, 32-38. Wong, B. (1979). Increasingretention of main ideas through questioning strategies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 42-47. Wong, B. (1987). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 189195. parameters promoting Wong, B. (1994). Instructional transferof learned strategies in students with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 110-120. Wong, B., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasingmetacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioningtraining. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228-239. Wong, B., & Wong, R. (1986). Study behavior as a function of metacognitive knowledge about critical task variables: An investigation of above average, average, and learning disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 101-111. Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M. (1985). WoodcockJohnson Psychoeducational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Joseph R. Boyle, Department of Special Education, Box Ed1147, Southern IllinoisUniversityat Edwardsville, wardsville,IL 62026

98

Learning Disability Quarterly

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:33:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions