A comparison of graphic organizers on the comprehension and retention of science knowledge among Taiwanese adolescents with learning disabilities.

摘要

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of mind mapping, as compared to the use of linear outlines, to present science knowledge to adolescents with learning disabilities. Three different types of informationally equivalent instructional materials (i.e., text directly derived from textbooks, mind maps, and outlines) were developed. An alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the relative facilitative effects of mind maps and outlines compared to text on the delivery of science knowledge. Four ninth grade Taiwanese students with learning disabilities were paired and participated in this study. Three dependent measures (free oral retells, production-response tests, and choice-response tests) directly evaluated the participants' comprehension and retention of the content presented, whereas a pretest/posttest was also used to measure generalization.; The results showed that the nature of the measures made a difference in the evaluation of the outcomes. On the choice-response tests, three participants outperformed in the mind map condition as compared to the outline and baseline conditions. However, on the production-response tests, only one participant outperformed in the mind map condition as compared to the other two conditions. For oral free retells, none of the participants were able to recall more main ideas from the mind map than from both the outline and the text. Only two participants were able to slightly recall more facts during both the mind map and outline conditions than the baseline condition. The results lend some support to the effectiveness of mind mapping. Analysis of the procedure and results revealed that the facilitative effects of mind mapping may not be fully achieved due to the lack of intensive instruction and study skill training in this study. Limitations of this study included the inconsistency between baseline and intervention conditions, the lack of consistent testing for the mnemonic value of mind mapping, and the small number of participants.