Graphic Organizers and Their

Effects on the Reading

Comprehension of Students
with LD:
A Synthesis of Research

Ae-Hwa Kim, Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Wanzek, and Shangjin Wei

Abstract
Previous research studies examining the effects of graphic organizers on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities
(LD) are reviewed. An extensive search of the professional literature between 1963 and June 2001 yielded a total of 21 group design in-
tervention studies that met the criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. Using graphic organizers (i.e., semantic organizers, framed outlines,
cognitive maps with and without a mnemonic) was associated with improved reading comprehension overall for students with LD. Com-
pared to standardized reading measures, researcher-developed comprehension measures were associated with higher effect sizes. Initial
gains demonstrated when using graphic organizers were not revealed during later comprehension tasks or on new comprehension tasks.

G
raphic organizers are visual and
spatial displays designed to fa-
cilitate the teaching and learn-
ing of textual material through the “use
of lines, arrows, and a spatial arrange-
ment that describe text content, struc-
ture, and key conceptual relationships”
(Darch & Eaves, 1986, p. 310). Graphic
organizers include semantic maps, se-
mantic feature analysis, cognitive maps,
story maps, framed outlines, and Venn
diagrams.
Ausubel (1963) originally rational-
ized the use of graphic organizers by
speculating that a learner’s existing
knowledge, which he referred to as
cognitive structure, greatly influences
his or her learning. When the cognitive
structure expands and strengthens by
incorporating new information, learn-
ing occurs. To facilitate this process,
graphic organizers provide learners
with a meaningful framework for re-
lating their existing knowledge to the
new information (Ausubel, 1963; Witt-
rock, 1992). Mayer (1984) reaffirmed
the utility of graphic organizers by ex-
amining reading as an information
processing and storage process during
which graphic organizers may be used
to display connections among concepts.
Within the reading process, Mayer
suggested that the use of such organiz-
ers may better allow readers to connect
their existing knowledge base with the
text information.
By using graphic organizers, educa-
tors hope to facilitate the readers’ un-
derstanding of the text through visual
depictions of key terms and concepts
and the relationships among them
(Simmons, Griffin, & Kame’enui, 1988).
Of course, enhancing all students’
reading comprehension is valuable,
but making such improvements is par-
ticularly important and demanding
when focusing on students with learn-
ing disabilities (LD). As students
progress through school, reading in-
creasingly involves expository text
from which students are expected to
learn; however, this type of text may
pose more challenges than other read-
ing assignments (e.g., fiction). For
example, expository text is more infor-
mation driven and may contain unfa-
miliar technical vocabulary. Moreover,
such text is often organized poorly
and, consequently, requires students to
perform complex cognitive tasks in
order to comprehend the material
(Lapp, Flood, & Ranck-Buhr, 1995).
Many students with LD who may al-
ready have difficulty with reading and
study skills are challenged by the aca-
demic domains of reading and inter-
preting expository text (Bryant, Ugel,
Thompson, & Hamff, 1999; Bryant
et al., 2000). Therefore, these students
can benefit from learning strategies
that facilitate the comprehension of
this type of text. One strategy that has
often been recommended to assist stu-
dents with LD in learning from expos-
itory text is the use of graphic organiz-
ers (Bos & Vaughn, 2002; Rivera &
Smith, 1997; Taylor, Harris, & Pearson,
1988).

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com

JOURNAL OF atLEARNING
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
DISABILITIES
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004, PAGES 105–118
106
Although practitioner journals or
texts recommend the use of graphic or-
ganizers as an effective strategy to pro-
mote the comprehension of expository
text (Blachowicz & Ogle, 2001; Boyle &
Yeager, 1997; Hudson, Lignugaris-
Kraft, & Miller, 1993), the accumulated
body of research demonstrates incon-
clusive findings for supporting such a
recommendation. Over the past 3 dec-
ades, researchers have conducted sev-
eral syntheses of the research literature
to analyze how the use of graphic or-
ganizers with expository text affects
students’ comprehension (Griffin &
Tulbert, 1995; Moore & Readence, 1980,
1984). In general, these syntheses re-
vealed that using graphic organizers
has small overall effects on students’
comprehension of expository text. For
example, Moore and Readence (1980,
1984) conducted two meta-analyses to
examine the effects of graphic organiz-
ers on the comprehension of exposi-
tory text. Their findings revealed small
overall effect sizes (.30 and .22, respec-
tively), which suggests a somewhat
limited value of using graphic organiz-
ers to promote comprehension.
In addition to these earlier analyses,
Griffin and Tulbert (1995) reviewed
several studies relating the use of
graphic organizers to reading compre-
hension that yielded inconclusive find-
ings, which they attributed to varia-
tions in intervention designs and
instructional processes and to con-
founds with methodology. Similarly,
Rice (1994) argued that the lack of con-
sistent operational criteria in studies
using graphic organizers contributed
to inconclusive findings. For example,
instructional procedures for using
graphic organizers varied by such fac-
tors as text variables (e.g., type, con-
tent, level), originators (e.g., teachers
vs. students), position relative to the
text (e.g., before or after the text), and
outcome measures. Although several
reviews provided tenuous results on
the differential effects of various graphic
organizers—using graphic organizers
constructed by students, positioned
after the text, and used for a longer
time demonstrated greater effects than
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
using graphic organizers constructed
by teachers, positioned before the text,
and used for a shorter time (Dunston,
1992; Moore & Readence, 1980, 1984)—
overall, the effects of using graphic or-
ganizers still appear to be inconclusive
due to the variations in operational
criteria in studies using graphic orga-
nizers.
In general, previous syntheses fo-
cused on examining the effect of using
graphic organizers on the reading com-
prehension of students without LD.
The one review that examined the ef-
fect of using graphic organizers specif-
ically on the reading comprehension of
students with LD (Griffin & Tulbert,
1995) only included three studies. Be-
cause of this limited number of studies,
it is not possible to reach definitive
conclusions from the findings for stu-
dents with LD.
Although students with LD have dif-
ficulty organizing and recalling verbal
information (Wong, 1978), they may
perform nonverbal tasks fairly suc-
cessfully (Vellutino, Harding, Stager, &
Phillips, 1975). Similarly, researchers
have argued that students with LD
have strengths in spatial or visual
modes of conceptualization (Pirozzolo
& Rayner, 1979; Witelson, 1977). Thus,
one can hypothesize that visual dis-
plays of information, such as graphic
organizers, may help students with LD
circumvent their difficulties with orga-
nizing and recalling verbal informa-
tion, thereby enhancing their reading
comprehension. To determine how ef-
fective the use of graphic organizers is
for enhancing the reading comprehen-
sion of students with LD, a systematic
synthesis of research is needed. Al-
though most research on graphic orga-
nizers has focused on students without
LD, quite a few research studies have
been conducted specifically with stu-
dents with LD.
The purpose of this article is to sys-
tematically review the findings of
group design intervention studies ex-
amining the effect of graphic organiz-
ers on comprehension for students
with LD. This synthesis is intended
to assist practitioners and future re-
searchers to better understand the ef-
fects of using graphic organizers to im-
prove the reading comprehension of
students with LD.
Method
Study Selection
We used a three-step process to iden-
tify studies to include in the synthesis.
First, journal articles and dissertations
that met specific criteria were selected
from a meta-analysis by Swanson,
Hoskyn, and Lee (1999), in which they
systematically scanned online data-
bases (i.e., PsycINFO, MEDline, ERIC,
and Dissertation Abstracts) for studies
from 1963 to 1997. Criteria used to se-
lect the studies for our synthesis in-
cluded the following:
1. Students in K–12. Participating stu-
dents must have been in Grades K–12.
2. Identified disability. Participants
must have included students with LD.
We used the same definition for LD as
Swanson et al. (1999) provided in their
meta-analysis (i.e., average intelli-
gence and poor performance in at least
one academic or related behavioral do-
main).
3. Design. Research design must have
been either a treatment–comparison de-
sign or a single-group design. Single-
subject design studies were not in-
cluded; however, we searched for such
studies during a hand search of 10
journals and present these studies’
findings in the discussion.
4. Independent variable. Intervention
must have been the use of graphic
organizers (i.e., semantic feature analy-
sis, semantic maps, or other visual or-
ganizers) either displaying concept re-
lationships discussed within the text or
providing an outline/overview of the
text. Graphic organizers not serving
one of these purposes were not in-
cluded (e.g., Bergerud, Lovitt, & Hor-
ton, 1988).
5. Dependent variable. Reading com-
prehension must have been one of the
dependent measures, and this measure
had to assess students’ silent or oral

reading and their ability to answer
questions about the passage. For ex-
ample, several studies conducted by
Bos and colleagues included a concept
measure, which assessed students’
ability to apply the concepts presented
in the passage to real-life situations
(Anders, Bos, & Filip, 1984; Bos & An-
ders, 1990, 1992; Bos, Anders, Filip, &
Jaffe, 1985, 1989). The concept measure
included passages for the students to
read and demonstrate their under-
standing by answering questions;
therefore, we considered this instru-
ment a reading comprehension mea-
sure.
After the initial search, we con-
ducted a second set of computer
searches in PsycINFO and ERIC to lo-
cate studies published between 1996
and June 2001 that also met these crite-
ria. Key words or root forms of them
(i.e., reading comprehension, comprehen-
sion, reading, learning disab*, reading
disab*, dyslex*) were entered in various
combinations to capture the greatest
possible number of articles. A final
search was conducted by hand in 10
major journals related to the topic from
1996 through June 2001. Journals used
in this final search included Applied
Psycholinguistics, Exceptional Children,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, The Journal of
Special Education, Learning Disability
Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, Remedial and Special Edu-
cation, Reading Research Quarterly, and
Reading and Writing.
Data Analysis
Coding Procedures. Through the
use of extensive coding, we organized
the pertinent information from each
intervention study, including age of
participants, stated purpose, research
design, intervention variables, and re-
ported findings. After this information
was double-coded for all of the articles,
an interrater reliability of .96 (range =
.75 to 1.00) was found. Furthermore,
the first author reviewed all code
sheets for comprehensiveness and ac-
curacy, and for the few cases contain-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004
ing questionable codes, the researchers
met to resolve the ambiguities and
reach a decision by consensus.
Effect Size Calculation. For inter-
vention studies with sufficient statisti-
cal information, we calculated the ef-
fect size, d. For treatment–comparison
design studies, the effect size was cal-
culated as the difference between the
intervention group’s mean posttest
score and the comparison group’s mean
posttest score divided by the pooled
standard deviation. A standardized
mean change measure, on the other
hand, was used to calculate effect sizes
for the single-group design studies
(Becker, 1988). When the researchers
reported only a t or an F statistic, we es-
timated effect size by applying the fol-
lowing formulas derived by Rosenthal
and colleagues (Rosenthal, 1991; Ro-
senthal & Rosnow, 1984):
d= 2t
√ df
d = 2√F
√df (error)
When authors reported statistically
nonsignificant results with no addi-
tional information, we assigned 0 as
the effect size (Bos et al., 1985, 1989).
Assigning 0 to nonsignificant results
has a conservative impact on the re-
sults (Cooper, 1998). We calculated ef-
fect sizes for all but one study (i.e.,
Boyle & Weishaar, 1997). We inter-
preted effect sizes according to Co-
hen’s (1988) guidelines: 0.2 as a small
effect size, 0.5 as a medium one, and 0.8
as a large one.
Results
A total of 21 intervention studies,
which were all reported in journal arti-
cles, met our criteria for inclusion in
the synthesis. Six of these studies were
reported in one article (Bos & Anders,
1992), whereas another journal article
contained three studies (Horton, Lov-
itt, & Bergerud, 1990). Moreover, the
107
same two studies were reported in
more than one journal (Bos et al., 1985,
1989). One article was excluded from
our synthesis because, although the use
of graphic organizers was mentioned
in the abstract, the authors did not in-
clude such an implementation in either
the intervention’s description or the re-
sults or discussion sections (Weisberg
& Balajthy, 1990). These results led us
to review a total of 15 journal articles
containing 21 separate intervention
studies. Each study’s purpose, partici-
pants, interventions, measures, and find-
ings (i.e., effect sizes or descriptive
findings) are described in Table 1 for
the treatment–comparison design stud-
ies and in Table 2 for the single-group
design studies.
Features of the
Intervention Studies
All of the studies included in this syn-
thesis reported on interventions using
graphic organizers to improve the read-
ing comprehension of students with
LD. In the following sections, we de-
scribe the interventions’ features in-
cluding participants, research designs,
intervention variables, and compre-
hension measures.
Participants
The 21 studies included a total of 848
students with LD. Moreover, 16 stu-
dents with educable mental retarda-
tion were included in two of the stud-
ies (Boyle, 1996, 2000). Four studies
also included students without disabil-
ities (n = 724; Horton et al., 1990, Stud-
ies 1, 2, & 3; Lovitt, Rudsit, Jenkins,
Pious, & Benedetti, 1986); however,
when a study included such students,
the findings were disaggregated for
students with LD (Horton et al., 1990,
Studies 1, 2, & 3; Lovitt et al., 1986). Of
the 21 studies, 6 included high school
students, another 6 included junior
high school students, and 5 included
elementary school students. Further-
more, both elementary and junior high
school students participated in one
 108

TABLE 1
Summary of Interventions: Treatment–Comparison Design Studies
Study/Participants Intervention Dependent measures Key findings (effect size)

Anders, Bos, & • T (Semantic feature analysis): A relationship ma- • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
Filip (1984) trix with the major concepts and vocabulary from multiple-choice com- 1.52, p < .001
62 high school the passages. prehension test
students with LD • C (Dictionary instruction): Looking up difficult
words in the dictionary, writing their definitions,
and writing a sentence using each word.
• Duration/Intensity: Two 50-minute practice ses-
sions and two 50-minute experimental sessions
over 2 weeks.

Bos & Anders • T1 (Semantic mapping): A hierarchical relation- • Researcher-developed T1 vs. C (posttest): ES =
(1990) ship map from the vocabulary list. multiple-choice com- 1.31, p < .05
61 junior high • T2 (Semantic feature analysis): A relationship prehension test T1 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
students with LD matrix with the major concepts and vocabulary 0.50, ns
from the passages. T2 vs. C (posttest): ES =
• T3 (Semantic/syntactic feature analysis): Same 1.49, p < .05
as T2, but in this condition, using the matrix to T2 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
answer cloze-type sentences. 0.47, ns
• C (Definition instruction): Direct instruction on T3 vs. C (posttest): ES =
the definitions of the vocabulary terms. 1.22, p < .05
• Duration/Intensity: Three practice sessions and T3 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
three 50-minute experimental sessions over 1.43, p < .05
2 weeks.

Bos & Anders Phase I: Researchers implemented interventions • Researcher-developed T1, T2, T3 vs. C (posttest):
(1992) Study 1 in whole groups. multiple-choice com- ES = 0.81a
42 bilingual elementary • T1 (Semantic mapping) prehension test T1, T2, T3 vs. C (follow-up):
students with LD • T2 (Semantic feature analysis) ES = 0.86a
• T3 (Semantic/syntactic feature analysis)
• C (Definition instruction)
• Duration/Intensity: Three 50-minute practice ses-
sions and three 50-minute experimental ses-
sions over 2 weeks.

Bos & Anders (1992) Phase I: Researchers implemented interventions • Researcher-developed T1, T2, T3 vs. C (posttest):
Study 2 in whole groups. multiple-choice com- ES = 1.22a
61 junior high • Same as Study 1 prehension test T1, T2, T3 vs. C (follow-up):
students with LD ES = 0.78a

Bos & Anders (1992) Phase II: Special education teachers implemented • Researcher-developed T1, T2, T3 vs. C (posttest):
Study 3 interventions in whole groups. multiple-choice com- ES = 1.46a
47 bilingual elementary • T1 (Semantic mapping) prehension test
students with LD • T2 (Semantic feature analysis)
• T3 (Semantic/syntactic feature analysis)
• C (Definition instruction)
• Duration/Intensity: Three 50-minute practice ses-
sions and three 50-minute experimental ses-
sions over 2 weeks

Bos & Anders (1992) Phase II: Special education teachers implemented • Researcher-developed T1, T2, T3 vs. C (posttest):
Study 4 interventions in whole groups. multiple-choice com- ES = 1.51a
53 junior high • Same as Study 3 prehension test T1, T2, T3 vs. C (follow-up):
students with LD ES = 1.51a

Bos & Anders (1992) Phase III: Special education teachers implemented • Researcher-developed T1 vs. C (posttest): ES =
Study 5 interventions in small cooperative learning multiple-choice com- 0.48a
26 bilingual elementary groups. They acted as facilitators and coaches. prehension test T1 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
students with LD • T1 (Semantic mapping) 0.64a
(table continues)

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 109

(Table 1 continued)

Study/Participants Intervention Dependent measures Key findings (effect size)

Bos & Anders (cont’d) • T2 (Semantic feature analysis) T2 vs. C (posttest): ES =

• C (Normative group): Average-achieving stu- 0.31a
dents who read same passages. T2 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
• Duration/Intensity: Three 50-minute practice ses- 0.06a
sions and three 50-minute experimental ses-
sions over 2 weeks.

Bos & Anders (1992) Phase III: Special education teachers implemented • Researcher-developed T1 vs. C (posttest): ES =
Study 6 interventions in small cooperative learning multiple-choice com- 2.25a
22 junior high groups. They acted as facilitators and coaches. prehension test T1 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
students with LD • Same as Study 5 0.81a
T2 vs. C (posttest): ES =
0.18a
T2 vs. C (follow-up): ES =
0.76a

Bos, Anders, Filip, & • T (Semantic feature analysis) • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
Jaffe (1985); • C (Dictionary instruction) multiple-choice com- 1.69, p < .001
Bos, Anders, Filip, & • Duration/Intensity: Four 50-minute experimental prehension test T vs. C (follow-up): ES = 0,
Jaffe (1989) sessions over 2 weeks. ns
50 high school
students with LD

Boyle (1996) • T (Cognitive mapping strategy–TRAVEL): • Formal Reading Inven- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
30 sixth, seventh, and Topic –Write down the topic and circle it. tory : Comprehension 0.35, ns
eighth graders with Read–Read a paragraph. • CB: Below grade level, ES = 0.89, p < .05
LD or EMR (20 with Ask–Ask what the main idea and three details are literal
LD) and write them down. • CB: Below grade level, ES = 0.78, p < .05
Verify–Verify the main idea by circling it and linking inferential
its details. • CB: On grade level, ES = 1.37, p < .05
Examine–Examine the next paragraph and ask literal
and verify again. • CB: On grade level, ES = 0.98, p < .05
Link–When finished with the story, link all of the inferential
circles. • SDRT ES = 0.48, ns
• C: Typical reading techniques.
• Duration/Intensity: Six 50-minute sessions over
two weeks.

Boyle (2000) • T (Cognitive mapping strategy–RELATE): • CB with two-topic pas- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
24 ninth and tenth Read quickly to locate each topic. sage, literal 1.22, p < .05
graders with LD or Etch out one circle for each topic. • CB with two-topic pas-
EMH (18 with LD) Look for ideas unique to each topic and those sage, inferential ES = 0.78, ns
related to more than one topic as you start to • CB with two-topic pas-
read. sage, relational ES = 1.03, p < .05
Anchor three unique ideas for each topic in each • CB with three-topic
circle. passage, literal ES = 1.18, p < .05
Tie together two or three ideas related to two of • CB with three-topic
the topics. passage, inferential ES = 0.36, ns
Enclose three ideas related to all three topics. • CB with three-topic
• C: Typical reading techniques. passage, rational ES = 0.87, p < .05
• Duration/Intensity: Two 50-minute sessions over
1 week.

Boyle & Weishaar • T1 (Student-generated cognitive organizer– • CB: Below grade level, T1 vs. T2 vs. C (posttest):
(1997) TRAVEL): Students learned the cognitive map- literal, Below grade • T1 > C on all four mea-
39 tenth, eleventh, ping strategy TRAVEL (see Boyle, 1996). level, inferential, On sures, p < .05
and twelfth graders • T2 (Expert-generated cognitive organizer– grade level, literal, On • T2 > C on one of four
with LD TRAVEL): Students used organizers created by grade level, inferential measures (below grade
• SDRT level literal), p < .05

(table continues)

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

110 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

(Table 1 continued)

Study/Participants Intervention Dependent measures Key findings (effect size)

Boyle & Weishaar the researchers using the TRAVEL strategy to • T1 > T2 group on one of
(cont’d) guide them during reading. four measures (below
• C: Typical reading techniques. grade level, literal), p <
• Duration/Intensity: Eight 50-minute sessions over .05
2 weeks. Overall ns

Darch & Carnine
(1986)
24 fourth, fifth, and
sixth graders with LD
• T (Visual display): A visual display of the concept • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
relationships within each unit. multiple-choice com- 1.79, p < .01
• C (Text): Typical teacher-initiated group instruc- prehension test T vs. C (transfer test): ES =
tion. 0.67, ns
• Duration/Intensity: Nine 50-minute sessions over
2 weeks.

Darch & Eaves (1986)
22 high school
students with LD
• T (Visual display): Same as Darch & Carnine • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
(1986) multiple-choice com- 1.34, p < .01
• C (Text): Same as Darch & Carnine (1986) prehension test T vs. C (follow-up): ES =
• Duration/Intensity: Twelve 50-minute sessions 0.36, ns
over 3 weeks. T vs. C (transfer test): ES =
−0.67, ns

Darch & Gersten • T (Advanced organizer): An outline or overview • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
(1986) of facts and concepts from a lesson that showed multiple-choice com- 1.78, p < .01
24 high school the relationships among the concepts. prehension test
students with LD • C (Basal reading): Lesson through a lecture and
discussion format with students’ independent
reading and self-study.
• Duration/Intensity: Nine 50-minute sessions over
2 weeks.

Griffin, Simmons, &
Kame’enui (1991)
28 fifth and sixth
graders with LD
• T (Graphic organizers): Graphic organizers re- • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
flecting the hierarchical relationships among the oral free retell 0.47, ns
ideas in the chapters. • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
• C (List of facts): Vertical lists of information. production compre- 0.43, ns
• Duration/Intensity: Four 45-minute sessions over hension test T vs. C (follow-up): ES =
1 week. • Researcher-developed −0.16, ns
multiple-choice com- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
prehension test 0.59, ns
T vs. C (follow-up): ES =
0.32, ns

Note. T = treatment; C = comparison; ES = effect size; ns = nonsignificant; LD = learning disabilities; EMR = educable mental retardation; EMH = educable mental
handicapped; CB = curriculum-based measure; SDRT= Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test.
aES was reported in an original study, but the study did not provide results from significant tests.

study (Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, & Berg,
1984), whereas Horton et al. (1990,
Studies 1, 2, & 3) examined both junior
high and high school students in three
of their studies.
Research Design
All of the studies employed group de-
signs. More specifically, studies em-
ployed either a treatment–comparison
design (n = 16) or a single-group with
multiple treatments design (n = 5).
Intervention Variables
Types of Interventions. Although
all of the studies used graphic organiz-
ers in their interventions, researchers
chose a variety of graphic organizers.
A cross-study analysis revealed four
types of graphic organizers;
1. Semantic organizers represent rela-
tionships between concepts and fea-
tures of concepts (e.g., related vocabu-
lary) and include semantic mapping,
semantic feature analysis, and seman-
tic/syntactic feature analysis (n = 9;
Anders et al., 1984; Bos & Anders, 1990;
Bos & Anders, 1992, Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
& 6; Bos et al., 1985, 1989).
2. Cognitive maps with a mnemonic are
implemented by a teacher/researcher
or student to construct a cognitive map
through the use of a mnemonic (e.g.,
TRAVEL, RELATE) that displays con-
cept relationships in a unit (n = 3; Boyle,
1996, 2000; Boyle & Weishaar, 1997).
3. Cognitive maps without a mnemonic
display the various concept relation-

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004 111

TABLE 2
Summary of Interventions: Single-Group Design Studies
Study/Participants Intervention Dependent measures Key findings (effect size)

Horton, Lovitt, &
Bergerud (1990)
Study 1
8 students with LD
(5 middle school
and 3 high school
students); 163
students without
disabilities
• T (Teacher-directed graphic organizer): Students • Analysis of student- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
read a passage, and the teacher provided mod- generated graphic 1.85a, p < .01
eling and guided practice on constructing a organizers
graphic organizer.
• C (Self-study): Students’ independent reading
and self-study by taking notes.
• Duration/Intensity: Two 45-minute sessions over
1 week.

Horton, Lovitt, &
Bergerud (1990)
Study 2
8 students with LD
(5 middle school
and 3 high school
students); 163
students without
disabilities
• T (Student-directed graphic organizer with refer- • Analysis of student- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
ential cues): Students read a passage and inde- generated graphic 5.07a, p < .01
pendently completed a graphic organizer with organizers
text references.
• C (Self-study): Same as Study 1.
• Duration/Intensity: Same as Study 1.

Horton, Lovitt, &
Bergerud (1990)
Study 3
4 students with LD
(3 middle school
students and 1 high
school student);
226 students
without disabilities
• T (Student-directed graphic organizer with • Analysis of student- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
clues): Students read a passage and indepen- generated graphic 3.22a, p < .05
dently completed the graphic organizer with a organizers
list of clues.
• C (Self-study): Same as Study 1.
• Duration/Intensity: Same as Study 1.

Lovitt, Rudsit, Jenkins,
Pious, & Benedetti
(1986)
30 seventh graders
with LD;
172 seventh graders
without disabilities
• T (Adapted text): Each adapted chapter con- • Laidlaw comprehen- T vs. C (posttest): ES =
tained three framed outlines and two vocabulary sion test (i.e., match- 0.80, p < .05
exercises. ing and multiple-
• C (Regular text): No modification on text. choice questions)
• Duration/Intensity: More than 12 weeks.

Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, • T (Mapping readiness approach): Three types of • Researcher-developed T vs. C (posttest): ES =
& Berg (1984) maps: (a) episodic webs, (b) thematic or descrip- multiple-choice com- 0.96, p < .05
27 students with LD tive maps, and (c) classification maps. prehension test
from second to • C (Verbal readiness approach): A traditional di-
eighth grades rect-teaching reading lesson.
• Duration/Intensity: More than 16 weeks.

Note. T = treatment; C = comparison; ES = effect size; LD = learning disabilities.

aES was calculated based on disaggregated findings for students with LD.

ships in a unit (n = 7; Darch & Carnine,
1986; Darch & Eaves, 1986; Griffin,
Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1991; Horton
et al., 1990, Studies 1, 2, & 3; Sinatra
et al., 1984).
4. Framed outlines consist of graphi-
cally represented lesson outlines or
overviews that help teachers and stu-
dents identify main ideas and impor-
tant facts (n = 2; Darch & Gersten, 1986;
Lovitt et al., 1986).
Duration/Intensity of Interventions.
In 19 of the studies, the interventions
lasted between 1 week and 3 weeks, re-
sulting in a range of 2 to 12 sessions.
The interventions in the other two stud-
ies lasted 12 to 16 weeks with an unre-
ported total number of sessions (Lovitt
et al., 1986; Sinatra et al., 1984).
Persons Implementing Interven-
tions. Across the studies, either teach-
ers (n = 13), researchers (n = 6), or

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016

112
teachers–researcher (n = 2) delivered
the interventions.
Persons Generating Graphic Orga-
nizers. Teachers and researchers gen-
erated the graphic organizers in 16 of
the studies. The graphic organizers in
these studies included two types:
1. those generated prior to instruction
and used during instruction (e.g.,
Darch & Gersten, 1986; Horton
et al., 1990, Study 1), and
2. those generated prior to instruction
but left incomplete for the teacher
or researcher to fill out with the
students during instruction (e.g.,
Anders et al., 1984).
In four other studies, the students
themselves generated one of two dif-
ferent types of graphic organizers:
1. independently student-generated
ones (Boyle, 1996, 2000), or
2. blank ones designed by the teacher
and filled in by the students inde-
pendently (Horton et al., 1990,
Studies 2 & 3).
One final study included both teacher-
generated and student-generated
graphic organizers and compared their
effects (Boyle & Weishaar, 1997).
Comprehension Measures
Across the studies, several different
types of measures were used to assess
reading comprehension. In a majority
of the studies (n = 18), only researcher-
developed tests were used. Two stud-
ies included both researcher-developed
tests and standardized reading tests
(Boyle, 1996; Boyle & Weishaar, 1997),
and one study used a curriculum-
based assessment developed by a text-
book publishing company (Lovitt et al.,
1986).
Findings
We summarized the findings from in-
tervention studies by examining the ef-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
fects by type of graphic organizers,
grade levels of participants (i.e., ele-
mentary, junior high, or high school),
persons implementing interventions,
persons generating graphic organizers,
types of measurements, and additional
measures (i.e., follow-up tests and
transfer tests). We reviewed treatment–
comparison design studies first, and
then single-group design studies were
reviewed to confirm or disconfirm
these initial findings.
Types of Graphic Organizers. The
use of different graphic organizers (i.e.,
semantic organizers, cognitive maps
with and without a mnemonic, and
framed outlines) and the effect sizes as-
sociated with the use of each organizer
are presented.
Semantic organizers. Nine treatment–
comparison design studies by Bos and
colleagues revealed consistent findings
for the effects of semantic organizers
on reading comprehension. Students
with LD who used semantic organiz-
ers demonstrated significantly higher
scores on researcher-developed com-
prehension measures than students in
comparison groups (i.e., receiving dic-
tionary instruction, normative compa-
rison group). In eight of the nine
studies, semantic organizers were as-
sociated with large effect sizes (d =
0.81–1.69). Semantic organizers in the
ninth study were associated with a
small to medium effect size (d = 0.40;
Bos & Anders, 1992, Study 5). The rel-
atively small effect size in this study
(Bos & Anders, 1992, Study 5), how-
ever, may have been caused by the
comparison group being composed of
students without LD and actually rep-
resents a more positive outcome—stu-
dents with LD using semantic orga-
nizers performed slightly better than
typically developing students.
Cognitive maps with a mnemonic.
Three treatment–comparison design
studies by Boyle and colleagues exam-
ined the effects of using cognitive
maps with mnemonics on students’
reading comprehension. In two of the
studies, the researchers examined the
effects of cognitive maps with mne-
monics in comparison with conven-
tional reading techniques to read the
passage (e.g., taking notes; Boyle, 1996,
2000). The results revealed that stu-
dents who used cognitive maps with
mnemonics outperformed those using
conventional reading techniques on a
reading comprehension test (d = 0.91
and 0.81, respectively). In the third
study, the effects of using student-
generated versus expert-generated
cognitive organizers with mnemonics
were compared with each other and
with a comparison condition in which
the students used conventional read-
ing techniques to read the passage
(Boyle & Weishaar, 1997). Overall, the
student-generated cognitive organizer
was more effective in improving stu-
dents’ reading comprehension than the
expert-generated cognitive organizer
and the comparison condition. Although
the students who used the student-
generated cognitive organizer outper-
formed the students in the comparison
condition on four comprehension mea-
sures (p < .05), the students who used
the expert-generated cognitive orga-
nizer outperformed the students in the
comparison condition on one compre-
hension measure (p < .05). The student-
generated cognitive organizer group
outperformed the expert-generated
cognitive organizer group on one com-
prehension measure (p < .05).
Cognitive maps without a mnemonic.
Seven studies examined the effects of
cognitive maps without a mnemonic
on students’ reading comprehension
(Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch &
Eaves, 1986; Griffin et al., 1991; Horton
et al., 1990, Studies 1, 2, & 3; Sinatra
et al., 1984). The use of cognitive maps
was associated with higher compre-
hension scores than comparison condi-
tions (i.e., typical reading instruction)
in two treatment–comparison group
design studies (d = 1.79 and 1.34 re-
spectively; Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch
& Eaves, 1986). Four single-group de-
sign studies also demonstrated the
positive effects of using cognitive
maps on students’ reading compre-

hension (d = 0.96–5.07; Horton et al.,
1990, Studies 1, 2, & 3; Sinatra et al.,
1984). On the other hand, Griffin et
al. (1991) found that such cognitive
maps did not significantly enhance the
reading comprehension of students
with LD (d = 0.50, p > .05); however,
this nonsignificant finding may have
resulted from the comparison condi-
tion in this study being very similar to
the intervention condition. For instance,
both groups received similar instruc-
tion (i.e., a structured overview) in the
Griffin et al. (1991) study, whereas in
other studies, students in the compari-
son groups received different instruc-
tion (e.g., using dictionaries, reading
basals) from those in the intervention
groups using cognitive maps.
Framed outlines. Two studies exam-
ined the effects of using framed out-
lines on the reading comprehension of
students with LD. One treatment–
comparison group design study found
that students using framed outlines
significantly outperformed those in
comparison conditions (i.e., reading
basals) on a reading comprehension
test (d = 1.78; Darch & Gersten, 1986).
This finding was confirmed by a single-
group design study that demonstrated
positive effects of using framed out-
lines on students’ reading comprehen-
sion (d = 0.80; Lovitt et al., 1986).
Participants’ Grade Levels. For this
particular analysis, we included only
those studies conducted at one school
level (i.e., elementary, junior high, or
high school). We found no significant
differences across grade levels for the
effects of using graphic organizers on
students’ reading comprehension scores.
The use of graphic organizers consis-
tently related to large effect sizes across
grade levels. For example, high school
students using graphic organizers re-
ceived higher comprehension scores
than those in comparison conditions
(e.g., using dictionaries, self-study; d =
1.18; k = 10). For junior high school stu-
dents, graphic organizer use was asso-
ciated with a mean ES of 1.08 (k = 13)
in treatment–comparison design stud-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004
ies and with a mean ES of 0.80 (k = 1)
in a single-group design study. Finally,
graphic organizers were associated
with a mean ES of 0.79 (k = 7) for ele-
mentary school students in treatment–
comparison design studies.
Persons Implementing Interven-
tions. Whether researchers, teachers,
or researcher–teachers implemented
the intervention, the use of graphic or-
ganizers was associated with large ef-
fect sizes in treatment–comparison de-
sign studies (d = 0.96, k = 17; d =1.05,
k = 12; and d = 1.61, k = 2; respectively).
A mean ES of 2.38 (k = 5) was also
found for the single-group design
studies in which a teacher led the
graphic organizer instruction.
Persons Generating Graphic Orga-
nizers. Regardless of who generated
the graphic organizers (i.e., teachers,
researchers, or students), large effect
sizes were found. For studies in which
teachers or researchers generated the
graphic organizers, the mean effect
sizes ranged from 1.15 (k = 19) for
treatment–comparison design studies
to 1.20 (k = 3) for single-group design
studies. Similarly, large effect sizes
were found for studies using student-
generated graphic organizers: 0.86 (k =
12) for treatment–comparison design
studies and 4.15 (k = 2) for single-group
design studies. One study compared
the effects of using a student-generated
graphic organizer with those of using a
researcher-generated graphic orga-
nizer (Boyle & Weishaar, 1997). The re-
sults revealed that the use of a student-
generated graphic organizer yielded
higher comprehension scores than did
the implementation of a researcher-
generated graphic organizer on one of
four comprehension measures ( p <
.05). Two additional single-group de-
sign studies also demonstrated that
using student-generated graphic orga-
nizers was associated with larger effect
sizes than using teacher-generated
graphic organizers (Horton et al., 1990,
Studies 1 & 2). It is important to note,
however, that regardless of who gener-
113
ated the graphic organizers (i.e., teach-
ers, researchers, or students), groups
using such visual displays signifi-
cantly outperformed those in compar-
ison conditions (i.e., conventional
reading techniques, self-study) in these
two studies (Horton et al., 1990, Stud-
ies 1 & 2).
Types of Measures. Twenty of the
21 studies used researcher-developed
comprehension tests as their primary
dependent measures, and only 2 of
these 20 studies also included stan-
dardized reading tests (Boyle, 1996;
Boyle & Weishaar, 1997). Intervention
effects based on researcher-developed
reading tests were significantly larger
than those based on standardized tests.
In fact, neither of the two studies
using standardized reading tests re-
ported significant differences between
the graphic organizer intervention (i.e.,
cognitive maps with mnemonics) and
comparison conditions (Boyle, 1996;
Boyle & Weishaar, 1997). However,
when researcher-developed tests were
used as the comprehension measures,
students using cognitive maps per-
formed significantly better than stu-
dents in the comparison group (Boyle,
1996; Boyle & Weishaar, 1997).
Additional Measures. In addition
to posttest comprehension measures,
eight of the treatment–comparison de-
sign studies conducted follow-up tests
that contained questions similar to those
on the posttests about the reading
passage used in the intervention. Al-
though the differences between the
graphic organizer and comparison
groups were greater on posttests (d =
1.04) than on follow-up tests (d = 0.60),
the mean effect size obtained on follow-
up tests was still large.
Two treatment–comparison design
studies included transfer tests, which
assessed students’ abilities in applying
a graphic organizer to a new reading
passage (Darch & Carnine, 1986; Darch
& Eaves, 1986). No statistically signifi-
cant differences between graphic orga-
nizer groups and comparison groups
114
on transfer tests were found for either
study.
Discussion
Our examination of the effects of
graphic organizers on the reading
comprehension of students with LD re-
vealed overall beneficial outcomes
across the studies. In general, our find-
ings support the use of semantic orga-
nizers, cognitive maps with and with-
out mnemonics, and framed outlines
to promote these students’ reading com-
prehension. Across the board, when
the students were taught to use
graphic organizers, large effect sizes
were demonstrated on researcher-
developed reading comprehension post-
tests. Thus, visual displays of informa-
tion such as those provided by graphic
organizers enhance the reading com-
prehension of students with LD, possi-
bly by helping these students organize
the verbal information and thereby im-
proving their recall of it.
The results reported in this synthesis
are impressive given that a majority of
the 21 studies reviewed included both
treatment and comparison conditions.
The inclusion of comparison condi-
tions makes it possible for significantly
higher effects to be due to the inter-
vention (i.e., using graphic organizers)
rather than to general learning or fac-
tors other than the intervention. The
changes in comprehension reported in
these treatment–comparison design
studies, therefore, are greater than
what would be expected from stan-
dard instruction.
Of the three studies reviewed that
did not yield significantly more posi-
tive effects for the intervention group
than for the comparison group, two
studies (Bos & Anders, 1992, Studies 5
& 6) included average achievers in their
comparison groups instead of students
with LD. In these two studies, the re-
searchers trained the intervention
group (i.e., students with LD) to use
graphic organizers and then compared
their performance to that of average-
achieving students who did not re-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
ceive such training—a comparison that
yielded small to medium effect sizes.
Due to the differences in the general
academic achievement of these two
groups, it is difficult to interpret these
results. A better test of the effectiveness
of using graphic organizers would be
to assign students with LD randomly
to either the graphic organizer or the
comparison condition and not to in-
clude other types of students.
The third study (Griffin et al., 1991)
in which nonsignificant results were
found included a comparison group
who received similar instruction (i.e., a
structured overview) to the interven-
tion group but in a different format.
The intervention group received the in-
formation in the form of a graphic
organizer, whereas the comparison
group was given a list format. It is im-
portant to note that this was the only
study reviewed in which the compari-
son group received the same key in-
formation from the text as the inter-
vention group. Based on this study’s
results, it may be the practice of ex-
tracting important information from
the text that promotes reading compre-
hension, and not the specific graphic
organizer per se; however, further re-
search on specific graphic organizer
features is needed to support this in-
terpretation.
With respect to the effectiveness of
using graphic organizers across grade
levels, our analysis demonstrated ef-
fective outcomes at the elementary and
secondary levels for the use of graphic
organizers. Only one study (Sinatra
et al., 1984) included students at the
lower elementary level (i.e., second and
third grades), and the researchers did
not disaggregate the data for this sam-
ple of students from that of older ele-
mentary students, thereby making a
separate interpretation of the benefits
for lower elementary students diffi-
cult. Due to the lack of focus that this
and other studies placed on lower ele-
mentary school students, the positive
outcomes demonstrated for the use of
graphic organizers in our analysis are
limited to the upper elementary and
secondary grade levels.
In addition to analyzing the effects
by grade levels, we examined the in-
fluence that those implementing the
intervention had on the outcomes.
Both teacher- and researcher-directed
graphic organizer interventions were
associated with large effect sizes. In
fact, higher effect sizes resulted from
teachers rather than researchers lead-
ing the graphic organizer instruction in
treatment–comparison design studies
(d = 0.96 and 1.05 respectively)—a find-
ing that is slightly different from a pre-
vious synthesis that examined the
effects of multiple interventions on
students with LD and revealed that
researcher-directed interventions were
generally associated with more posi-
tive outcomes than teacher-directed
ones (Swanson et al., 1999). Rather
than having a researcher or a teacher
lead the intervention, a few of the stud-
ies included what they called a teacher–
researcher as the director of the inter-
vention (Anders et al., 1984; Bos et al.,
1985, 1989). Although the interventions
under the teacher–researcher’s direc-
tion resulted in higher effect sizes than
the teacher-directed interventions, these
studies did not provide a clear defini-
tion of what they meant by teacher–
researcher, which makes the difference
between these studies and the other
ones difficult to understand. Neverthe-
less, the high effect sizes obtained from
the teacher-directed interventions show
the feasibility of implementing graphic
organizer techniques in the classroom
setting.
Although all of these different analy-
ses revealed positive effects of using
graphic organizers to improve the read-
ing comprehension of students with
LD, it is important to note that the
reading comprehension measures that
a majority of these studies used were
developed by the researchers them-
selves and were aligned closely with
the intervention content. In fact, only
two studies included standardized
reading tests, and neither of these stud-
ies reported statistically significant dif-
ferences between the intervention and
comparison conditions when such
tests were used. Furthermore, despite

the findings that students participating
in the interventions outperformed those
in comparison groups on reading com-
prehension assessments, few partici-
pants reached comprehension levels
above 80% on the measures. In studies
yielding significant effect sizes, the
mean posttest scores ranged from 48%
to 83% correct, with 15 of the 29
posttests yielding means below 70%.
Based on these findings, then, the use
of graphic organizers is not sufficient
for ensuring that students will obtain
acceptable levels of understanding.
Related to this finding, high effect
sizes were found on posttests and
follow-up tests but not on transfer
tests. In a majority of the studies using
follow-up tests, both these and the
posttests addressed the specific pas-
sages that students had been taught
previously, which means essentially
that the use of graphic organizers was
an effective instructional tool for teach-
ing the content of specific passages.
However, these studies provided no
evidence to show that students could
transfer the use of graphic organizers
to understand other passages. In fact,
no statistically significant differences
were found when researchers used
transfer assessments—meaning that
students did not transfer their skills
(i.e., using graphic organizers) to novel
reading situations. These findings are
supported by similar results reported
in another synthesis focusing on read-
ing comprehension strategies in gen-
eral (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker,
2001). One explanation for the findings
in our synthesis might be these studies’
short intervention times (i.e., 1–3 weeks
in 19 studies). Longer intervention du-
rations may be necessary for students
to use graphic organizers more easily
and independently in novel situations.
To support this hypothesis, the use
of graphic organizers related to more
positive outcomes when the interven-
tion offered longer instruction and train-
ing (Alvermann & Boothby, 1986; Bean,
Singer, Sorter, & Frazee, 1986). Along
with longer interventions, researchers
may need to include specific instruc-
tion on how to generalize the use of
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004
graphic organizers to new reading sit-
uations—a hypothesis supported by
other research showing that students
with LD often have difficulty learning
to generalize without specific instruc-
tion (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993).
Methodological Issues
Findings from this synthesis confirmed
the findings of previous reviews on
graphic organizers used with students
without disabilities showing that there
has been a lack of consistent opera-
tional criteria for what constitutes a
graphic organizer. In our corpus of
studies, the graphic organizers varied
by type (e.g., semantic organizers,
framed outlines), originators (i.e.,
teacher, researcher, or student), and
person implementing the intervention
(Dunston, 1992; Moore & Readence,
1980, 1984). However, the duration of
the interventions and outcome mea-
sures were fairly consistent across the
studies; a majority of them lasted for a
short time and assessed students’ read-
ing comprehension with researcher-
developed posttests.
Whereas our overall findings are
positive, several methodological issues
in the studies limit the practical im-
plications of these results. First, the
type of measures used to assess
comprehension performance was one
major concern of the study. All of
the studies yielding significant results
used researcher-developed assess-
ments, whereas none of the studies
using standardized reading tests re-
ported significant results on such tests.
Paralleling these findings, previous
meta-analyses revealed that higher ef-
fect sizes were more likely to be ob-
tained on nonstandardized measures
developed by researchers than on stan-
dardized tests (Elbaum, Vaughn,
Hughes, & Moody, 2000; Swanson et
al., 1999). Furthermore, most of the
studies used the same passage for both
the intervention’s implementation and
its assessment. Taking our findings in
conjunction with these meta-analyses’
results, we can conclude that partici-
pants in our synthesis made gains in
115
the comprehension of the content
taught, but whether such gains would
generalize to other independent read-
ing situations and what part the
graphic organizers played in this
process are not clear.
A second issue relates to the compar-
ison conditions used in the treatment–
comparison design studies and whether
they were robust enough to provide
high standards against which the ef-
fects of graphic organizer interven-
tions could be measured (Gersten,
Baker, & Lloyd, 2000; Pressley & Har-
ris, 1994). Only one study compared
the use of graphic organizers to other
specific comprehension strategies (i.e.,
a structured overview) that might be
considered comparable with the inter-
vention condition. In all of the other
studies, the researchers compared their
interventions with much more distal
forms of instruction (e.g., typical read-
ing instruction) and, thereby, demon-
strated only that using graphic orga-
nizers is superior to typical instruction
in reading or content-area comprehen-
sion. Research comparing graphic or-
ganizer interventions to other, more
specific reading comprehension strate-
gies would help educators to ascertain
whether using graphic organizers is a
less strong, equally strong, or superior
strategy for comprehending text.
A third issue relates to the duration
of the interventions. The duration of
most of the interventions was short,
ranging between 1 week and 3 weeks,
with only two interventions lasting
longer than 10 weeks (Lovitt et al.,
1986; Sinatra et al., 1984; 12 weeks and
16 weeks, respectively). Such short in-
tervention periods may relate to the
limited effects found for the use of
graphic organizers on more general-
ized measures such as standardized
reading tests and transfer tests.
A fourth issue is that a majority of
the interventions used graphic orga-
nizers generated by teachers or re-
searchers, instead of teaching students
to generate their own graphic organiz-
ers. Only four studies implemented the
use of graphic organizers as a student-
directed strategy. Rather than focusing
116
on how graphic organizers act as learn-
ing tools to help students become more
independent readers, most of the stud-
ies in this synthesis focused on how
graphic organizers can act as instruc-
tional tools for teachers to improve
their students’ reading comprehension
of specific texts.
Finally, the same research teams con-
ducted the research on particular types
of graphic organizers (e.g., semantic
organizers by Bos and colleagues; cog-
nitive maps using mnemonics by Boyle
and colleagues). Such a lack of corrob-
oration across research teams and their
interventions limits the reported evi-
dence supporting the use of graphic
organizers. Replication of the interven-
tions by other researchers would help
to ascertain whether the use of specific
types of graphic organizers is an effec-
tive strategy for improving students’
reading comprehension.
Limitations
In this synthesis, we included the find-
ings from all of the group design stud-
ies conducted between 1963 and June
2001 that examined how effective the
use of graphic organizers is at improv-
ing the reading comprehension of stu-
dents with LD. Our synthesis did not,
however, include single-subject design
studies. Although we recognize the im-
portance of examining such studies,
previous syntheses of interventions
have reported separate summaries for
group design and single-subject design
studies (e.g., Swanson et al., 1999), and
we chose to model our synthesis after
these previous syntheses. Future re-
search to address single-subject design
studies on graphic organizers is war-
ranted to extend this current finding.
Despite the lack of a formal search for
and analysis of such studies, we did in-
clude them during our hand search of
10 journals to make an informal com-
parison between this study’s findings
and our synthesis’ findings. We uncov-
ered one article examining the effects
of using story maps on the reading
comprehension of students with LD
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
(Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). Interest-
ingly, this study did not focus on using
such graphic organizers to aid stu-
dents with the comprehension of ex-
pository text, like the studies included
in our synthesis, but instead related
this strategy to understanding narra-
tive text.
Implications for Future Research
Although the current literature pro-
vides evidence supporting the use of
graphic organizers to promote reading
comprehension among students with
LD, future research on such graphic or-
ganizer use should focus on several
factors including measuring compre-
hension with standardized reading
tests, examining interventions with
lower elementary school students,
using graphic organizers with inde-
pendent reading, comparing the use of
complex versus simple graphic orga-
nizers, comparing graphic organizer
interventions with other comprehen-
sion strategies, and replicating the
present research findings.
As described in our results, the first
of these factors—measuring reading
comprehension with standardized read-
ing assessments—was not addressed
in a majority of studies included in our
synthesis. Furthermore, the two stud-
ies that included standardized reading
tests did not demonstrate positive ef-
fects for the use of graphic organizers
on such tests. Thus, further research
examining the effects of using graphic
organizers on reading comprehension
as measured by standardized tests is
warranted to ascertain whether graphic
organizers are effective tools for im-
proving scores on more distal compre-
hension measures.
A second area for future research fo-
cuses on the types of students who can
benefit from using graphic organizers.
The reviewed studies conducted graphic
organizer interventions with upper el-
ementary, junior high, and high school
students, which demonstrates a lack of
information about how to use graphic
organizers with younger students (i.e.,
lower elementary students). Related to
this, it is unknown if students need to
read at a certain level before being able
to use graphic organizers effectively. If
this is the case, future lines of research
might include examining the effects of
using graphic organizers with students
at various reading levels and on
younger students’ listening compre-
hension (i.e., a possible precursor to
reading comprehension).
Third, as discussed earlier, the lit-
erature has focused more on improv-
ing students’ reading comprehension
through teacher instruction with graphic
organizers than through students’ in-
dependent use of graphic organizers.
Further research needs to clarify
whether students’ use of graphic orga-
nizers independently is an effective
strategy to enhance their reading com-
prehension. Researchers must also
keep in mind both the type of graphic
organizers (e.g., semantic organizers,
framed outlines) and the duration of
instruction as factors influencing how
effective students’ use of graphic or-
ganizers independently can be at im-
proving students’ reading comprehen-
sion.
A fourth potentially important re-
search area involves examining the
effectiveness–efficiency ratio for spe-
cific types of graphic organizers. Spe-
cifically, researchers must further in-
vestigate the differential effects of
using complex versus simple graphic
organizers on students’ comprehen-
sion and the differences in teacher sus-
tainability of using complex versus
simple graphic organizers in their in-
struction. For example, some graphic
organizers (i.e., semantic feature analy-
sis) take a long time to teach from or
complete, and if student gains in com-
prehension are minimal, the use of
such organizers may be of little value.
A fifth area on which future research
might focus lies in comparing the ef-
fects of using graphic organizers with
other comprehension strategies. Knowl-
edge of the conditions under which
graphic organizer use is superior or in-
ferior to other reading strategies will
assist educators in choosing the appro-

priate comprehension instruction for
students with LD. Furthermore, stud-
ies using these types of comparisons
and demonstrating positive effects for
using graphic organizers will generate
greater confidence in such interven-
tions as helpful instructional practices
for teaching students with LD.
In addition to more in-depth studies
of graphic organizer use within these
different areas, future research needs
to replicate the specific graphic orga-
nizer methods explored in the present
studies. Only three studies examining
the use of graphic organizers with stu-
dents with LD have been conducted in
the last 10 years. Moreover, generally
speaking, each research team studied
one type of graphic organizer. Repli-
cation of these studies by various re-
searchers across different settings is
necessary in order to generalize about
the benefits of the intervention tech-
niques.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ae-Hwa Kim, PhD, is a member of the faculty
in the Dept. of Special Education at Dankook
University in Seoul, Korea. Her research inter-
ests include effective reading interventions and
technology applications for students with learn-
ing disabilities. Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the
H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corp. Regents Pro-
fessor and director of The University of Texas at
Austin Center for Reading and Language Arts.
Her research addresses social and academic out-
comes for students with learning disabilities
and reading difficulties. Jeanne Wanzek, MA,
is a doctoral student in special education at The
University of Texas at Austin. Her research in-
terests include effective instructional practices
for students with learning disabilities. Shang-
jin Wei, MA, is a doctoral student in special
education at The University of Texas at Austin.
Address: Ae-Hwa Kim, Dankook University,
Department of Special Education, San #8,
Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 140-
714; aehwa@dankook.ac.kr
REFERENCES
Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986).
Children’s transfer of graphic organizer
instruction. Reading Psychology, 7(2), 87–
100.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 2004
Anders, P. L., Bos, C. S., & Filip, D. (1984).
The effect of semantic feature analysis on
the reading comprehension of learning
disabled students. In J. A. Niles & L. A.
Harris (Eds.), Changing perspectives on
reading/language processing and instruction
(pp. 162–166). Rochester, NY: National
Reading Conference.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of
meaningful verbal learning. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Bean, T. W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee,
C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive in-
struction in outlining and graphic orga-
nizer construction on students’ compre-
hension in a tenth-grade world history
class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153–
169.
Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standard-
ized mean-change measures. British Jour-
nal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychol-
ogy, 41, 257–278.
Bergerud, D., Lovitt, T. C., & Horton, S.
(1988). The effectiveness of textbook
adaptations in life science for high school
students with learning disabilities. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 70–76.
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading
comprehension: Strategies for independent
readers. New York: Guilford Press.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of
interactive vocabulary instruction on the
vocabulary learning and reading com-
prehension of junior-high learning dis-
abled students. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 13, 31–42.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1992). Using in-
teractive teaching and learning strategies
to promote text comprehension and con-
tent learning for students with learning
disabilities. International Journal of Disabil-
ity, Development, and Education, 39, 225–
238.
Bos, C. S., Anders, P. L., Filip, D., & Jaffe,
L. E. (1985). Semantic feature analysis
and long-term learning. In J. A. Niles &
R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A re-
search perspective (pp. 42–47). Rochester,
NY: National Reading Conference.
Bos, C. S., Anders, P. L., Filip, D., & Jaffe,
L. E. (1989). Effects of an interactive in-
structional strategy for enhancing read-
ing comprehension and content learning
for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–
390.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for
teaching students with learning and behavior
problems (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
117
Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive
mapping strategy on the literal and infer-
ential comprehension of students with
mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 19, 86–98.
Boyle, J. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn di-
agram strategy on the literal, inferential,
and relational comprehension of students
with mild disabilities. Learning Disabili-
ties: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 5–
13.
Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The ef-
fects of expert-generated versus student-
generated cognitive organizers on the
reading comprehension of students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 12, 228–235.
Boyle, J. R., & Yeager, N. (1997). Blueprints
for learning: Using cognitive frameworks
for understanding. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 29(4), 26–31.
Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., &
Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies
for content-area reading instruction. In-
tervention in School and Clinic, 34, 293–302.
Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson,
S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M.
(2000). Reading outcomes for students
with and without reading disabilities in
general education middle-school content
area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly,
23(3), 24–38.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A
guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching
content area material to learning disabled
students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240–
246.
Darch, C., & Eaves, R. (1986). Visual dis-
plays to increase comprehension of high
school learning-disabled students. The
Journal of Special Education, 20, 309–318.
Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-
setting activities in reading comprehen-
sion: A comparison of two approaches.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. (1993). Strat-
egy mastery by at-risk students: Not a
simple matter. Elementary School Journal,
94, 153–167.
Dunston, P. J. (1992). A critique of graphic
organizer research. Reading Research and
Instruction, 31(2), 57–65.
Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., &
Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are
118
one-to-one tutoring programs in reading
for elementary students at risk for read-
ing failure? Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 92, 605–619.
Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Ad-
vanced story map instruction: Effects on
reading comprehension of students with
learning disabilities. The Journal of Special
Education, 33, 2–17.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000).
Designing high-quality research in spe-
cial education: Group experimental de-
sign. The Journal of Special Education, 34,
2–18.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S.,Williams, J. P., &
Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading com-
prehension strategies to students with
learning disabilities: A review of re-
search. Review of Educational Research, 71,
279–320.
Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’-
enui, E. J. (1991). Investigating the effec-
tiveness of graphic organizer instruction
on the comprehension and recall of sci-
ence content by students with learning
disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities, 7, 355–376.
Griffin, C. C., & Tulbert, B. L. (1995). The ef-
fect of graphic organizers on students’
comprehension and recall of expository
text: A review of the research and impli-
cations for practice. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficul-
ties, 11, 73–89.
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D.
(1990). The effectiveness of graphic orga-
nizers for three classifications of sec-
ondary students in content area classes.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22.
Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller,
T. (1993). Using content enhancements to
improve the performance of adolescents
with learning disabilities in content
classes. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 8, 106–126.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Karlsen, B., & Garduel, E. F. Stanford Di-
agnostic Reading Test (4th ed.). San An-
tonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Mea-
surement.
Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Ranck-Buhr, W.
(1995). Using multiple text formats to ex-
plore scientific phenomena in middle
school classrooms. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficul-
ties, 11, 173–186.
Lovitt, T., Rudsit, J., Jenkins, J., Pious, C., &
Benedetti, D. (1986). Adapting science
materials for regular and learning dis-
abled seventh graders. Remedial and Spe-
cial Education, 7(1), 31–39.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text compre-
hension. Educational Psychologist, 19(1),
30–42.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1980). A
meta-analysis of the effects of graphic or-
ganizers on learning from text. In M. L.
Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives in
reading research and instruction: Twenty-
ninth yearbook of the National Reading Con-
ference (pp. 213–217). Washington, DC:
National Reading Conference.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A
quantitative and qualitative review of
graphic organizer research. Journal of Ed-
ucational Research, 78, 11–17.
Pirozzolo, F. J., & Rayner, K. (1979). Cere-
bral organization and reading disability.
Neuropsychologia, 17, 485–491.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (1994). More
about increasing the quality of educa-
tional intervention research: A synthesis.
Educational Psychology Review, 6, 191–208.
Rice, G. E. (1994). Need for explanations in
graphic organizer research. Reading Psy-
chology: An International Quarterly, 15, 39–
67.
Rivera, D. P., & Smith, D. (1997). Teaching
students with learning and behavior prob-
lems (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic proce-
dures for social research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Es-
sentials of behavioral research: Methods and
data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., &
Kame’enui, E. J. (1988). Effects of teacher-
constructed pre- and post-graphic orga-
nizer instruction on sixth-grade science
students’ comprehension and recall. Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 82(1), 15–21.
Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg,
D. N. (1984). Improving reading compre-
hension of disabled readers through
mapping. The Reading Teacher, 38(l), 22–
29.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C.
(1999). Interventions for students with learn-
ing disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.
Taylor, B., Harris, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1988).
Reading difficulties: Instruction and assess-
ment. New York: Random House.
Vellutino, F., Harding, C., Stager, J., &
Phillips, F. (1975). Differential transfer in
poor and normal readers. Journal of Ge-
netic Psychology, 126, 3–18.
Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Devel-
opment of disabled readers’ metacompre-
hension ability through summarization
training using expository text: Results of
three studies. Journal of Reading, Writing,
and Learning Disabilities International, 6(2),
117–136.
Witelson, S. (1977). Developmental dys-
lexia: Two right hemispheres and none
left. Science, 195, 309–311.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Knowledge acquisi-
tion and comprehension. In M. C. Alkin
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research
(6th ed., pp. 699–705). New York: Mac-
millan.
Wong, B. (1978). The effects of directive
cues on the organization of memory and
recall in good and poor readers. Journal of
Educational Research, 72, 32–38.