Models: Enhancements Literature Review: Curriculum: Research & Solutions: NCAC: CAST

Teacher standing over a student writing.

Models are samples of content, process, or product that serve as exemplars for students. Models can be used as part of instruction to demonstrate an acceptable or exemplary product, such as an essay. They can also be used to shape a desirable performance, such as a "think aloud," in which a teacher models then use of a strategy, or a process, e.g., the stages in the writing process.

Models help to illustrate or clarify concepts. Models are also used to create and exemplify rubrics or standards that students can use to evaluate their performance or product.

Evidence of effectiveness

We examined research on the use of models to support and enhance learning.We located 49 studies altogether, conducted over the course of the last twenty years. The vast majority of the studies found that the use of models was associated with higher student performance.

Twenty of these studies investigated the use of models with students with learning disabilities. Students from a number of other populations, including those with emotional or behavioral difficulties and students described as low achievers or "at-risk," were studied to a much lesser degree. One study investigated the use of models with students described as "challenge seekers" (this study found no effect of the use of models with this population).

About a fifth of the students investigated the effect of models on student affect. Half of these studies (in this half, all of the studies included students with learning disabilities) found that the use of models was associated with increased student affect.

The studies we reviewed examined the use of models by students at all grade levels, both in general educational classrooms and special education classrooms. Research was conducted across a number of content areas including reading, math, science, and social studies, and both individual students and groups of students were evaluated.

Most of the studies did not evaluate a use of models that involved technology, but more than half evaluated the use of models along with concept maps.

While some of the studies had some methodological shortcomings, such as lack of a control group or very small sample sizes, enough methodologically sound studies were conducted over time to suggest that models can be a productive addition to many learning situations.

Models Data Tables

Models 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.

Anderson-Inman, L., Redekopp, R., & Adams, V. (1992). Electronic studying: Using computer-based outlining programs as study tools. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 8(4), 337-358.

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.

Bottge, B. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 81-92.

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 and Instruction, 31(1), 43-53.

Cohen, H. G. (1982). Relationship between locus of control and the development of spatial conceptual abilities. Science & Education, 66(4), 635-642.

Cohen, H. G. (1992). Two teaching strategies: Their effectiveness with students of varying cognitive abilities. School Science & Mathematics, 92(3), 126-132.

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 pre-reading story mapping on elementary readers' comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 353-360.

Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105-113.

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 disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

Glaser, C. W., Rieth, H. J., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., & Peter, J. (2000). A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 27-43.

Goldman, S. R., Petrosino, A. J., Sherwood, R. D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1996). Anchoring science instruction in multimedia learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 257-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Griffin, M. M. (1995). You can't get there from here: Situated learning, transfer, and map skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 65-87.

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.

Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., & Taber, S. (1991). Fourth graders' gradual construction of decimal fractions during instruction using different physical representations. The Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 321-341.

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

Lewis, E. L., Stern, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational technology, 33(1), 45-58.

Liao, Y. C. (1998). Effects of hypermedia versus traditional instruction on students' achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 30(4), 341-359.

Marsh, L. G., & Cooke, N. L. (1996). The effects of using manipulatives in teaching math problem solving to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(1), 58-65.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6(2), 89-98.

Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students' motivation and strategies in project-based learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501-521.

Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.

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 & 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.

Nugent, G. C. (1982). Pictures, audio, and print: Symbolic representation and effect on learning. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(3), 163-174.

Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M. P., & Wai-Ling, B. (1998). Hands-on biology: A museum- school-university partnership for enhancing students' interest and learning in science. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 267-288.

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.

Sharp, D. L. M., Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C. K., & Vye, N. J. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research & Development, 43(4), 25-42.

Sherwood, R. D., Kinzer, C. K., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1987). Some benefits of creating macro-contexts for science instruction: Initial findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 417-435.

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.

Sitman, F. X., Bruce, M. H., May, P. N., McConaghy, R., & Nolt, S. K. (1997). Hands- on science and basic skills learning by culturally and academically diverse students: A test of the IALs. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 356-366.

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.