Review of Literature

Introduction

The previous chapter explored how the use of compare and contrast graphic organizers

could impact students comprehension of informational text. In a review of relevant scholarly

literature, the researcher discovered studies completed with elementary students through

undergraduate students and from the United States to the Middle East. Some studies lasted

months, others a single day. The researcher compiled and analyzed these studies and found three

prominent themes for classroom learning: a.) the importance of reading comprehension, b.) the

need to teach more informational text, and c.) the benefits of graphic organizers. These themes

will be discussed in greater detail throughout the remainder of this chapter.

Reading Comprehension

Reading is not simply the formulation of words from a series of characters but a complex

and purposeful process in which readers, using their knowledge of spoken and written language,

construct meaning from the words through the lenses of their cultures and their experiences

(Commission on Reading of the National Council of Teachers of English, 2004). Teaching

children how to read and make meaning of that reading is only the first step to strong reading

comprehension.

To determine which factors influence informational text comprehension the most,

Liebfreund and Conradi (2016) used a sample of 177 students in grades three through five.

Multiple assessments tested various aspects of students reading abilities. Students completed

these assessments in two phases over the course of six weeks. Results showed that decoding

efficiency, vocabulary knowledge, prior knowledge, and intrinsic motivation all influenced

informational text comprehension. Motivation played a large part in reading comprehension for
lower readers and decoding efficiency played a large part in reading comprehension for higher

readers. In analyzing each group, Liebfreund and Conradi (2016) found that vocabulary

knowledge significantly impacted comprehension in both the high and low level student groups,

which prompted the current researcher to incorporate a plethora of content specific vocabulary

knowledge while teaching the interventions.

While Liebfreund and Conradi (2016) looked at what factors most influenced

informational text comprehension, a Turkish study sought to learn how those factors differed

with respect to grade level, text type, and test type (Bastug, 2014). This study assessed 1,028

fourth and fifth grade Turkish students on two text types--narrative and informational--using

multiple choice, open-ended, and cloze tests. From these texts, 10 multiple-choice questions, an

open-ended question, and two narrative, and two informative cloze tests were created.

Bastug (2014) determined students narrative and informational text comprehension

levels by finding the average score from the three narrative and informational text

comprehension assessment of multiple choice, open-ended, and cloze tests. In regard to text type,

students in both fourth and fifth grade performed higher in narrative text comprehension than

they did in informational text comprehension. Bastug (2014) found narrative text structure was

easier for students than informative text structures. The information gleaned from this study--that

informational text is more difficult to comprehend than narrative text--guided the current

researcher to implement an increased amount of informational text in daily learning.

In another study, Braten and Anmarkrud (2013) examined whether comprehension

strategies instruction makes a difference regarding informative text comprehension (referred to

as expository text in the study). The researchers hypothesized that students exposed to deeper-
level comprehension strategies instruction would increase their comprehension of expository

text.

Deeper-level comprehension strategies such as: a.) predicting upcoming text content, b.)

generating and asking questions, c.) constructing self-explanations and clarifications, d.)

capturing the gist of the text, e.) monitoring comprehension, and f.) formulating and solving

problems are the types of strategies that should be taught to improve expository text

comprehension. Surface-level strategies discussed in the research included memorization.

Participants included 104 ninth grade students from four classes in four public high schools

located in Norway who were divided into two groups for the study. The first group consisted of

58 students from two classes where the teachers used 29.3% of instructional time to teach

reading comprehension strategies (deeper-level strategies). The second group consisted of 46

students where the teachers used only 8.5% of the time to teach reading comprehension

strategies. Students read an expository social studies text and both groups of students used the

monitoring strategies that were taught while studying the text. A strategy-use inventory was

given to students to complete immediately after the reading of the text. Students were asked to

rate the extent in which they used either deeper-level or surface-level strategies (1=not at all,

10=very often). After this, teachers administered the comprehension performance measure based

on the student's reading of the text.

Braten and Anmarkrud (2013) found that students in the deeper-level strategies

instruction group outperformed students in the more cursory strategies instruction group on the

comprehension performance measure. Based on the performance of the students using deeper-

level comprehension strategies during this intervention, the current researcher taught and utilized

only those deeper-level strategies mentioned in this study in her study.

 Not surprisingly, the results of these three studies confirm that reading comprehension

becomes more difficult when students work with informational text and, as a result, direct

interventions are necessary (Bastug, 2014; Braten & Anmarkrud, 2013; Liebfreund & Conradi,

2016).

The text structure of informational text is more varied and, thus, more difficult than a

narrative text structure with its consistent plot pattern of rising action, climax, and resolution.

Students are comfortable with narrative structure since their first exposure to reading comes from

storybooks; they have less experience analyzing more complex text structures like compare and

contrast and cause and effect (Bastug, 2014). When students start working with more difficult

informational text structures, deeper-level strategies such as: a.) predicting upcoming text

content, b.) generating and asking questions, c.) constructing self-explanations and clarifications,

d.) capturing the gist of the text, e.) monitoring comprehension, and f.) formulating and solving

problems must be taught in order for meaningful reading comprehension to occur (Braten &

Anmarkrud, 2013). With this challenging task, the current researcher acknowledged the

importance of engagement by noting motivation played the largest role for lower readers and

decoding efficiency played the largest role for higher readers (Liebfreund & Conradi, 2016).

Since, most informational text introduces new vocabulary to students, the current researcher

emphasized the role of vocabulary knowledge to significantly impact comprehension with both

high and low readers. Based on the information gathered, the current researcher determined the

best practices for reading comprehension center around a knowledge base of content vocabulary

as well as the use of deeper-level comprehension strategies.

Informational Text

Best practices for reading comprehension cannot be utilized without the implementation

of informational text in the classroom. Using Bowkers 2002-2009 statistics, 75% of books

published in the U.S. are non-fiction, leaving 25% fiction. These statistics reflect what book-

buying adults are reading, and yet, many elementary teachers continue to focus the majority of

their reading time on works of fiction (Robinson, 2011). The Common Core responded to this

weakness, citing the practical need for direct instruction to improve students comprehension of

informational texts (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief

State School Officers, 2010).

Clearly, students need to be working more with informational text not only because they

are likely to read more informational text for pleasure outside of school, but, as noted earlier,

informational text makes up the core of what readers will need for college, career, and day-to-

day living. One study completed by Baker et al. (2011) sought to learn if childrens increased

experience and exposure with informational text would improve their reading achievements and

engagement in texts. This three-year, consecutive study focused on second through fourth grade,

lower income African American students. During the first year of the study, 222 second grade

students participated. (However, due to withdrawals, new enrollment, and redistricting, the

number of students who participated in the study each year fluctuated.) Students participating in

the project across all three years formed three groups: 1.) 28 students in informational text

infusion/reading for learning instruction (text infusion/RFL instruction), 2.) 51 students in

informational text infusion/traditional instruction (text infusion alone), and 3.) 30 students in

traditional instruction.
 The first group, text infusion/RFL instruction, was given greater access to informational

text for the classroom, with teachers participating in professional development on reading for

learning. The second group, text infusion alone, was given greater access to informational text

for the classroom similar to the first group, but without teachers modifying their instruction. The

third group, traditional instruction, was not given supplemental informational text nor

professional development. Teachers in this group were told to continue with their usual

instructional practices. Participating teachers assessed all students reading comprehension using

standardized and research-based measures, reading motivation, and a reading performance

assessment for each year that the study was completed.

Results from all methods of assessment proved contrary to the hypothesis of Baker et al.

(2011), who determined text infusion and professional development for teachers on reading for

learning would improve informational text comprehension. Students in the three experiment

groups showed no outperformance from students in the control group. Based on Bakers (2011)

study, the current researcher noted that simply exposing students to informational text fails to

improve their comprehension. Students must be exposed to a greater amount of informational

text while being taught to use deeper-level comprehension strategies.

Likewise, McCown and Thomason (2014) studied the challenges of informational text

comprehension, but they looked to collaborative strategic reading (CSR) for help. Strategies for

CSR include preview (activating prior knowledge), click and chunk (self-monitoring during

reading), get the gist (finding the main idea during reading), and wrap up (generate questions

after reading) (Klinger, Vaughn & Schumm, 1998).

Participants in this study included four heterogeneous groups of fifth grade students in a

Georgia school district (McCown and Thomason, 2014). The two designated experimental
classrooms at School A used CSR strategies in reading, science, and social studies instruction at

least three times per week for three months. The two designated control classrooms at School B

taught in the same way as they had in past instruction. Results showed a significant difference in

informational text comprehension between the experimental and control group on only one of

four assessments. Again, the current researcher noted that comprehension of informational text

only improved with the deeper-level comprehension strategies found in CSR.

Informational text instruction is continuing to be infused into the elementary classroom.

Teachers must be prepared to give students strategies and skills to comprehend these more

difficult text structures. Baker et al. (2011) found that simple informational text exposure and

infusion did not improve students comprehension of text. McCown and Thomason (2014)

challenged the hypothesis of Baker et al. (2011) when they discovered that students participating

in Collaborative Strategic Reading improved their informational text comprehension. By using

strategies such as activating prior knowledge, self-monitoring, finding main ideas during reading,

and generating questions after reading, McCown and Thomason (2014) showed promising

results for improving informational text comprehension.

Graphic Organizers

Bringing these strategies to students in an engaging way is key to the students

independent implementation of them. One could argue McCown and Thomason (2014) are

indebted to David Ausubel for the organizational focus of their strategies. David Ausubel is one

of the first pioneers of graphic organizers. He created advance organizers that proved the best

learning occurs when students can organize learned knowledge with prior knowledge (Baron,

1970). Advocates of the graphic organizer do not always agree on the type of graphic organizer

and the best time to present a graphic organizer; however, most graphic organizer enthusiasts
agree this strategy helps students organize key concepts, terms, and ideas (National Education

Association, 2015). Graphic organizers have helped teachers organize their delivery of

information and have helped students improve their learning.

The organization of key concepts, terms, and ideas is a difficult task, especially for

students with learning disabilities. Graphic organizers have proved successful by assisting these

students in understanding and organizing difficult concepts, such as organization, connecting

new material to prior knowledge, identifying main ideas and details, and drawing inferences

(LaJeunesse, 2011). The need to aid students with learning disabilities (LD) has spawned

research into, quite frequently, graphic organizers as a means to help students with LD organize,

comprehend, and recall information, research that has benefited all students (Carnahan and

Williamson, 2013; Ciullo, Falcomata, & Vaughn, 2015; Grunke, Wilbert, & Stegemann, 2013;

Ozmen, 2011).

In Ozmens (2011) research, graphic organizers, specifically compare and contrast

organizers, improved expository text comprehension with students who have intellectual

disabilities. His study sought to learn if presenting graphic organizers before or after reading

made a greater impact on student comprehension, a presentation choice important for this

researcher, as well as any educator implementing this strategy.

Ozmens (2011) research subjects were five Turkish students in grades six, seven, and

eight with mild intellectual disabilities. Thirteen Compare and Contrast texts formed the

baseline. Five graphic organizers were introduced before reading, and five were introduced after

reading. Students first read the baseline text silently and then were asked two questions: 1.) what

are the concepts similarities and 2.) what are the concepts differences. Data was collected three

times. Next, students were taught to use graphic organizers before reading. The researcher filled
out the graphic organizer, students studied it, then read the text. After this, the post-assessment

was given. In the last iteration, students were taught to use graphic organizers after reading.

Students read the text first, then the student and researcher together completed the graphic

organizer. The student examined the completed graphic organizer before a post-assessment was

given. Results showed four students benefitted by completing the graphic organizer after reading

and one student benefitted by completing the graphic organizer before reading. This study taught

the current researcher that students benefited most when graphic organizers were presented after

reading. Students were able to take the information they learned and conceptualize that

information in an organized way by utilizing a graphic organizer after reading, making an

important distinction to the current researcher.

Likewise, a study completed by Shaw, Nihalani, Mayrath, and Robinson (2012) looked at

how presenting graphic organizers before or after reading would affect comprehension for

college students, specifically 111 undergraduate students attending a large Southwestern

university. The experiment took place in a single 45-minute session. Both groups were told they

would receive an instructional lesson on sleep disorders and then complete two tests based on

lesson content. One group was presented with a completed graphic organizer before reading the

text and one group was presented with a completed graphic organizer after reading the text.

Results showed that students who received the graphic organizer after they viewed the text

outperformed students who received the graphic organizer before the text. These results are

consistent with the findings of Ozmen (2011) whose research also showed that four of the five

participants performed better on the post assessment after using graphic organizers at the

conclusion of reading the text.

 Similar to Ozmens (2011) focus on students with LD, Grunke, Wilbert, and Stegemann

(2013) studied the effect of graphic organizers to improve comprehension skills for children with

learning difficulties. This study, conducted in Germany, examined three fifth-grade students and

three eighth-grade students. To create a baseline, educators selected 18 narratives and composed

10 comprehension questions that covered the main ideas of each story. The narratives were given

to students in no specific order.

To begin the intervention, researchers dedicated 30-minutes of time to teach the story

mapping technique to students. First, the teacher would model how a story map was used when

reading through a text. Next, the students would read stories independently and practice

completing the story maps (with assistance when needed). Lastly, the children independently

read text, created story maps on the stories, and filled out the components on their own.

After 18 sessions of intervention, students returned to the previous narratives and

completed the comprehension questions. Results showed that after the intervention, the strategy

of teaching story mapping was extremely effective. All subjects tested were able to dramatically

increase the number of correct responses on the comprehension assessment. While this study

used narrative text instead of informational text, the current researcher was able to use the

information in this study to confirm the importance of explicitly teaching a strategy for using a

graphic organizer, not just handing out a graphic organizer for students to work on

independently.

In a similar study, Ciullo, Falcomata, and Vaughn (2015) examined if explicit instruction

and the use of graphic organizers improved comprehension of social studies content for students

with learning disabilities (LD). This study took place for 12 weeks at two elementary schools

(six weeks per school) all located in the southwestern United States. Participants included seven,
fourth and fifth grade students with learning disabilities who started in the control group and then

went to the experimental group. School A consisted of three students and School B consisted of

four students.

Students at both schools worked individually with one teacher in 45-minute sessions. In

the control group, the teacher introduced the lesson and then orally read a social studies passage

to the student. After reading, the teacher asked the student to describe the main ideas of the

passage. Lastly, the teacher administered a 10 item quiz. In the experimental group, the teacher

again would introduce the lesson and then orally read the same social studies passage with the

student. After reading, the student was presented with a graphic organizer (partially filled in to

promote engagement), and the teacher reviewed the graphic organizers content with the student.

Next, the student would be the teacher and explain the main events, using the graphic

organizer as a guide. Lastly, like the control group, the student took a 10 item quiz.

Students in the experimental group improved on the 10 item quiz only after the

introduction of graphic organizers. In addition, social studies content knowledge improved for all

participants. The explicit instruction and work with graphic organizers improved the overall

reading comprehension for informational text. The current researcher noted the benefits (higher

test scores) when introducing graphic organizers at the end of reading a text. Based on the

findings, the current researcher implemented graphic organizers at the completion of reading.

Carnahan and Williamson (2013) also researched ways to help special needs students

improve comprehension of science texts. The researchers assess to what degree the compare and

contrast text structure would help three middle school students with autism spectrum disorder

(ASD), improve their comprehension. Carnahan and Williamson (2013) hypothesized that

students with ASD and lower reading levels would better be able to comprehend compare and
contrast texts with explicit instruction. The study included three middle school students with

high-functioning autism and their teachers at a small private school in the Midwest.

During the control phase of this study, educators chose eight three-paragraph expository

science passages that clearly exemplified the compare and contrast text structure and created 10

comprehension questions for each of the passages. During the intervention phase of the study,

students received explicit instruction with compare and contrast signal words and Venn diagrams.

After reading the passages and answering the comprehension questions, students completed the

Venn diagrams independently. Carnahan and Williamsons (2013) hypothesis proved correct.

Based on the studys findings, explicit instruction that targeted text structure increased the

comprehension of informational text. The current researcher learned the importance of explicit

teaching of not only graphic organizers but also text structure. Students were able to correctly

answer more comprehension questions after they were taught the text structure of compare and

contrast.

Ponce, Mayer and Lopez (2013) took organizational tools into the world of technology

when they researched the effectiveness of computer-based spatial learning on reading

comprehension. Twelve schools in Santiago, Chile were chosen for this study. Six schools were

assigned to the computer-based instruction (CBI) group and six schools were assigned to the

traditional instruction (TI) group. The CBI group included 33 classrooms of fourth, sixth and

eighth grades (a total of 1,265). The TI group had 36 classrooms of fourth, sixth and eighth

grades (a total of 1,203). This study lasted for approximately one school semester (an average of

fourteen sessions lasting ninety minutes each).

At the beginning of the year, participants took a reading-writing pretest. After that, 14

sessions dedicated to the use of CBI were implemented with the experiment group while regular
instruction continued with the control group. Students in the experiment group received

scaffolded practice while completing reading passages and while putting writing ideas into

graphic organizers. Lastly, all participants took a post-test. Results showed the students

instructed with spatially-based learning strategies supported by computer applications improved

their reading and writing skills, more than students in the traditional instruction group. This study

showed the effectiveness of technology-based graphic organizers. The current researcher noted

that again, the group of students that made gains with comprehension were explicitly taught

strategies on how to use graphic organizers. While Ponce, Mayer and Lopez (2013) did not focus

on using these strategies before verses after, the students used CBI after reading, reinforcing the

researchers choice to use graphic organizers after reading to improve comprehension.

Like Ponce, Mayer and Lopez (2013) who essentially used CBI to organize note-taking, a

study by Rahmani and Sadeghi (2011) looked at the effect of note-taking on reading

comprehension. Participants included 108 Iranian undergraduate English foreign language

learners. The experimental group, made up of 48 students, received training on how to take notes

guided by graphic organizers. The control group, made up of 60 students, received no additional

training on taking notes or graphic organizers.

Rahmani and Sadeghi (2011) collected data throughout eight, 30-minute sessions. In the

first session, the educator in the experiment group explained the importance of note-taking and

took time with the class to practice note-taking skills using graphic organizers. The information

provided in graphic organizers from the teacher was slowly weaned away until participants were

completing graphic organizers independently. Toward the end of the study, the students were

expected to read passages, take notes, and answer comprehension questions. The post-test
revealed that the experimental group continued to use graphic organizers to take notes while the

control group employed traditional note taking strategies.

The specific results showed that in regard to note-taking, the experimental group

mentioned more key ideas and main concepts. The experimental groups notes, formatted as

graphic organizers, were more complete and detailed than the control groups notes. The study

revealed that students who completed and studied graphic organizers performed significantly

better on comprehension and recall than did students who took conventional notes. Using note-

taking strategies and skills (via the use of graphic organizers) helped students connect prior

knowledge with current knowledge and organize the main ideas and details of the text. This

study reinforces the current researchers results: when students can organize what they have read,

they are able to better comprehend.

Ropic and Abersek (2012) also looked to graphic organizers as a tool to increase reading

comprehension in science. A five-month study analyzed the influence of web graphic organizers

on learning and understanding of explicatory science text with third graders in Slovenia. Students

were organized into two groups. The experimental group (84 students) learned how to use web

graphic organizers as a tool to understand the text structure description. After the first few

lessons, students began creating and completing graphic organizers on their own. Unlike the

experimental group, students in the control group (60 students) took part in learning as usual

with no direct instruction on using graphic organizers.

Educators collected data twice, once at the beginning of the five-month experiment and

once at the end. The same graphic organizer used for instruction was used as an assessment.

Students in the experimental group improved on multiple levels. First, they were able to visualize

text structure and learned how to search for specific information. Second, they recorded more
information on their graphic organizers than did the students in the control group. Lastly,

approximately one-third of the students in the experimental group developed the skill for

recording pre-knowledge and new-knowledge in the graphic organizer. Students who were

explicitly taught skills for completing graphic organizers completed their graphic organizers with

better detail at the end of the assessment. The importance of the explicit instruction on how to

use graphic organizers is well documented by Ropic and Abersek (2012).

Elmianvari and Kheirabadi (2013) also focused on explicit instruction. They analyzed the

impact of explicit text structure instruction on reading comprehension. Participants in this study

included 56 female Iranian learners of English as a foreign language between the ages of 17-26.

These 56 female participants were split in half into 28 students in the control group and 28

students in the experimental group. The experimental group received additional instruction on

expository structure (writing that informs or describes). Each group completed a teacher-made

reading comprehension test at the start and completion of the study. This test was structured

around the following text structures: a.) description, b.) compare and contrast, and c.) cause and

effect.

Educators gave the pre-test in both the control and experiment groups first. The same

passages were taught to each group, but the experimental group received explicit instruction for

the types of text structure they were reading and strategies for using this instruction for reading

and comprehending expository text. After the treatment, the results of the posttest clearly showed

that participants in the experiment group made more progress in their comprehension of

expository text. Again, this study proved to the current researcher that explicit instruction for the

use of graphic organizers, as well as for specific text structures, leads to improved post-

assessment scores.
 In the most recent study of this literature review, Scott and Dreher (2016) examined the

thinking processes students go through when constructing graphic representations of textbook

content. Participants included 28 sixth graders from four middle schools in the mid-Atlantic

region. Fourteen of those students received explicit instruction in identifying text structures used

to organize social studies textbook content. The other 14 students received traditional instruction.

For the study, teachers read passages to students in the experimental group, and then

students read them silently. Each student then created a graphic representation for the passage

content. Students were required to think aloud during this process to gain better insight into what

their thinking processes were. The two main thinking processes noted were restating and writing

and graphic organization and construction. Students in the experimental group were able to

identify the correct text structure and adjust that structure to fit the content of the text. The

response of this group indicated that knowledge of how content is structured allows students to

effectively organize and comprehend content, showing that text structure, in addition to content,

is an important aspect to teach when understanding informational text.

Research in this review makes it clear that graphic organizers are a beneficial tool for

reading comprehension. Two of the research studies, Ozmen (2011) and Shaw, Nihalani,

Mayrath, and Robinson (2012), found that students benefited most when graphic organizers were

shown after reading text. Ropic and Abersek (2012), Carnahan and Williamson (2013),

Elmianvari and Kheirabadi (2013) and Scott and Dreher (2016) all studied the effect of explicit

informational text structure instruction on students reading comprehension in conjunction with

graphic organizers. Lastly, Rahmani and Sadeghi (2011), Grunke, Wilbert, and Stegemann

(2013), Ponce, Mayer, and Lopez (2013) and Ciullo, Falcomata, and Vaughn (2015) argued that

explicit instruction must include how to use graphic organizers. In all studies, graphic organizers
made it possible for students to increase their scores on post-assessments. All studies showed

clear benefits from organizing information as a way to comprehend it.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the previous research, the researcher continued to look at the

effects of specific types of graphic organizers to benefit the comprehension of informational text.

The push for reading and understanding of informational text has become a staple in the world of

education. Unfortunately, many students do not have the skills and strategies to comprehend this

more challenging type of text. Research has shown that informational text comprehension is

historically more challenging than narrative text comprehension. Graphic organizers have proven

most beneficial when shown after a text has been read. Graphic organizers also help students to

understand the content and text structure of informational texts (Carnahan & Williamson, 2013;

Elmianvari & Kheirabadi, 2013; Ozmen, 2011; Ropic & Abersek, 2012; Scott & Dreher (2016);

Shaw, Nihalani, Mayrath & Robinson (2012).

An important component to the benefit of graphic organizers is the explicit strategy

instruction that students need. Giving students a graphic organizer and telling them to fill it out

is not beneficial nor a best practice. Based on all the information, the researcher decided on three

separate graphic organizers with which to teach informational text (specifically the compare and

contrast text structure). Learning what type of graphic organizers to use will benefit the students

comprehension of informational text.