Concept Maps: Enhancements Literature Review: Curriculum: Research & Solutions: NCAC: CAST

Concept map for story The Three Little Pigs.

Concept Maps are visual and graphic representations of information that show both small units of information and the relationship between these units. Concept maps-also known as story maps, graphic organizers, advance organizers, story webs, semantic maps, and cognitive organizers-are often used to teach text structure, to aid comprehension, and to help students understand vocabulary.

Evidence of effectiveness

We examined research on the use of concept maps to support and enhance learning. We located 28 studies altogether, 26 of which found that the use of concept maps was associated with higher student performance.

A number of these studies investigated the use of concept maps with students with learning disabilities, all of which found positive effects associated with the use of concept maps.

Four studies investigated the effect of models on student affect, two of which found that the use of concept maps was associated with increased student affect (both were conducted with students with learning disabilities).

The studies we reviewed examined the use of models by students at all grade levels except kindergarten, both in general educational classrooms and special education classrooms. Research was conducted across a number of content areas including reading, math, science, social studies, and language arts. Studies were conducted primarily with whole classes and groups of students, but four studies evaluated the use of concept maps with individual students.

Fifteen of the studies evaluated the use of teacher generated concept maps, while seven evaluated the use of student generated concept maps. When compared, student generated maps were found to be more helpful than teacher generated maps, but both were associated with better outcomes than a "traditional" teaching environment.

Only three of the studies evaluated a use of concept maps that involved technology. The majority of the studies evaluated the use of concept maps to help students understand relationships between concrete, rather than abstract, concepts.

While many of the studies had methodological shortcomings, such as lack of a control group or very small sample sizes, a few methodologically sound studies were conducted with relatively large sample sizes. The overwhelming positive results found in these studies leads us to suggest that concept maps - especially those that are student generated - can be a productive addition to educational experiences that ask students to make associations between facts or concepts.

Concept Maps Data Tables

Concept Maps References

Alverman, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children's transfer of graphic organizer instruction. Reading Psychology, 7(2), 87-100.

Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 461-484.

Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 300-324.

Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407-437.

Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student- generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(4), 228-235.

Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. B., & Deschler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.

Carnes, E. R., Lindbeck, J. S., & Griffin, C. F. (1987). Effects of group size and advance organizers on learning parameters when using microcomputer tutorials in kinematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 781-789.

Clements-Davis, G. L., & Ley, T. C. (1991). Thematic preorganizers and the reading comprehension of tenth-grade world literature students. Reading Research & Instruction, 31(1), 43-53.

Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kammeenui, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(4), 275-295.

Davis, Z. T. (1994). Effects of prereading story mapping on elementary readers' comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 353-360.

Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.

Gallego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J. (1989). Interactive teaching and learning: Facilitating learning disabled students' transition from novice to expert. Literacy Theory and Research, 311-.

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilties. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.

Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 335-342.

Herl, H. E., Baker, E. L., & Niemi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 206-218.

Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F. Jr., Chung, G. K. W. K. & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 315-333.

Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(3), 214-229.

Montague, M., & Bos, C. S. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(1), 26-33.

Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.

Morin, V. A., & Miller, S. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 21(1), 22-36.

Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (1989). Improving the reading comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 373-380.

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52.

Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38(4), 400-404.

Reyes, E. I., Gellego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J. (1989). Integration of internal concepts and external factors: Extending the knowledge of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 112-124.

Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89.

Scanlon, D., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(1), 41-57.

Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. Reading Teacher, 38(1), 22-29.

Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 705-712.

This Web Site was developed pursuant to cooperative agreement #H324H990004 under CFDA 84.324H between CAST and the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education or the Office of Special Education Programs and no endorsement by that office should be inferred.