Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999)

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced Story Map Instruction: Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17,28.

Problem, Purpose and Research Questions:
The study being reviewed is entitled Advanced Story Map Instruction: Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with Learning Disabilities (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). This study is a replication of work that was done with similarly disabled students (Gurrney et al. 1990). However, the researchers endeavored to improve on the research design and add an additional phase where generalization of the treatment was assessed.


Methods
The multiple baseline study design used assessments prior to the intervention, post measures, a time lapse and then a maintenance measure to see if gains in story comprehension continued after direct instruction and practice in story map construction was discontinued.

The study participants consisted of five males and one female. All students were Caucasian. One student also had a documented neurological disability. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study to relate details about each student’s performance throughout the study.

The researchers provided a table which included participant’s demographic and test data which included: age, grade, years in special education, performance on the full scale IQ assessment (WISC-R), and two subscale scores on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension.

The study researchers limited the participants to students who did not have severe reading delays so that reading ability would not be a confounding variable. The reading level criteria set up were that students had to score at least the fourth grade level on the word identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test – Revised (WRMT-Revised). In addition, to prove that they had difficulties with comprehension they had to have been so identified by their special education teacher as well as scoring at least two grades below their grade level on the reading comprehension subtest of the WRMT-Revised.

For the dependent variable, the researchers developed two comprehension quiz instruments. The first one focused on correctly identifying story grammar elements. These questions closely correlated with story map elements that the students complete with the story map form. The second, basal assessment instrument contained comprehension questions that combined literal and inferential questions. All questions required a production response of more than one word or phrase. Acceptable answers to these questions were developed so a scoring rubric was developed. Students also completed a basal story map with no teacher intervention except for “do your best.”

Students were given instruction on completing story map forms in a separate room in dyads, not in their classrooms. Teacher scripts were developed to control for some aspects of teacher interaction effects. The direct instruction sessions taught story map completion which included ascertaining the main idea, conflict and attempts at resolution. Students were first given sessions of direct instruction, then guided practice, and finally independent practice using a story map form that was developed by the researchers as a more advanced version of simple story maps. The intervention period for the dyads lasted from 14- to 20- weeks. The total time for the intervention phase lasted 21 to 27 hours (M=23.6 hr).

The story map form contained questions that were posted in a vertical portrait style format with horizontal lines provided for writing the answers to the following prompts: Student name, date, Story (Title), Name the problems or conflict. Identify the main characters and describe them. Where does the story take place? Tell how the characters try to solve the problem. Is there an added twist or complication in the story? Tell how the problem is or is not solved. What is the theme of the story? What is the author trying to say?

After students received instruction in story map completion, they participated in practice sessions until they reached the criteria for mastery- 80% on two out of three story grammar tests. A maintenance assessment of reading and comprehension questions was performed using another reading text after two weeks.

A verbal assessment of comprehension was incorporated into the study as well. It was in the form of story retelling where a teacher read a story to the student and then asked the student to retell the story in their own words. The rationale was put forward that students with learning disabilities often have problems expressing themselves via writing, so may not show their full subject knowledge through this means of communication. A rubric was set up to assess their verbal retelling of the text. Assessments were made before and after the direct instruction of story maps had completed. Each student was assessed separately, and retelling was audio taped and transcribed for later analysis.

Results
The study authors provided bar graphs showing pre, post, and maintenance scores for each student in the study.

The students also completed a student questionnaire in the form of a customer satisfaction survey. They were asked how they rated the story map procedure and whether or not they would advocate its use with their peers.

At baseline, the mean scores for story grammar quiz (story map completion) and basal comprehension were 30% and 39% respectively. During the teacher modeling phase, scores rose to a mean of 51% (range = 37% - 59%). For the independent phase, an average increase of 55% (range 40% - 67%) was made compared to baseline for the story grammar quizzes. A mean increase of 24% (range 5%- 26%) was made on the basal comprehension tests. For the generalization phase, the story grammar quiz mean score was 86% correct - an improvement of 56% over baseline. Whereas a mean increase of 16% was noted for the basal comprehension. In the maintenance phase, a mean increase over baseline of 19% (range 6% - 38%) was made on the story grammar quiz. A mean gain of 19% was also made on the basal comprehension test. With the exception of two students, literal and inferential comprehension scores rose for all other students.

For the oral retells, mean scores for the six students were not reported. Instead results were broken down by student. In comparing the number of words, the number of words increased for only two students. When analyzing the audio for story grammar elements, it was found that 5 of the 6 students showed increases in the number of story elements mentioned.

For the student questionnaire about the effectiveness of using story maps, the majority of the students chose the category often to describe how often they would use the technique (mean = 3 corresponding to “quite strongly”).

Discussion and Implications
The study researchers stated that using story maps helped students develop a framework to organize and remember story elements which in turn would help them develop greater comprehension. They point out that the mean performance of all six students improved from the baseline condition in basal comprehension. They noted the one female student’s performance decreasing after initial gains, though overall higher than baseline. She was also the student who was identified as having a neurological disorder. The researchers hypothesized that she became fatigued over the course of the many sessions.

The researchers listed some limitations that they saw in their study. First, they mentioned the small group of students in the study limits generalization. They listed the fact that intervention was provided in pairs where more individualized instruction could take place. Thirdly, they mentioned that students were given the intervention outside the classroom in a self contained environment, and suggested that studies performed in an inclusive environment are needed.

Critique
The two major problems with this study were two possible confounding variables the dyad instruction, which of course meant a much smaller teacher to student ratio, and the second being quiet environment with the concomitant lack of noise and distractions. These two variables could have accounted for comprehension gain and competed with the effectiveness of the independent variable under study – direct instruction in story map completion and all the sub-skills necessary for that independent skill.

Also, it would have been better if the results section listed quiz scores or z scores instead of improvement over baseline. The improvement over baseline, gave a “rosier” picture of gains made than would z scores. However the researchers did provide a plot graph for each student showing data points at each stage of the study for both story grammar quizzes and baseline comprehension tests. This graphic was useful in interpreting the results dispassionately.