Thinking Maps for ESL Reading Comprehension Enhancement

Introduction: The Achievement Gap for English Language Learners

The academic achievement gap between linguistic minority groups and other students is a persistent problem for the American public school system (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). The pattern of underachievement and high school dropout rates among Hispanic/Latino students within immigrant groups is particularly pronounced (Wong Fillmore & Meyer, 1992). Of the school-aged English Language Learner (ELL) population, 73% come from Spanish-language backgrounds (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002), and their reading test results are of particular concern, as literacy skills are the building blocks for academic achievement. The gap between the test scores of Hispanic/Latino students and white students is a well-documented phenomenon, existing throughout grades K–12 in both reading and mathematics (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2003).

According to the NCES (2000), 44% of foreign-born Hispanics fail to complete high school, compared to a much lower 15% of those born in the United States. Hispanics lag behind their white and Asian-American peers in both reading and math (NCES, 1992, 2007). Using average scale scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress — known colloquially as "the nation's report card" — the gap in reading and math stands at 25–27 points. A review of comparable results from 1992 shows a similarly substantial gap of 26 points, indicating that the gap has not closed over time. According to the report, this holds true in both the fourth and eighth grades.

The difficulty in acquiring academic English — the form of English needed for testing — appears to be a principal cause of this deficit (August & Hakuta, 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006; Bielenberg & Wong Fillmore, 2004; Cummins, 1979, 1986; Wong Fillmore & Meyer, 1992). In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 79% of English Language Learners came from Spanish-speaking homes.

The applicability to this study of Cummins' (1979, 2004) well-known and widely accepted distinction between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) — associated with conversational communication — and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) — skills such as reading and writing, which take much longer to develop — lies in understanding that the comfortable, everyday fluency Latino/a students display in conversational English often masks their rudimentary skills in reading and writing.

The key for a learner is to master "communicative competence" in a language (Hymes, 1974). This involves not only language knowledge and properly constructed sentences, but also the ability to use the language in context — what linguists refer to as semantics and pragmatics. Literacy for ELLs is complex (Gonzales, 1986). Elements that constitute the framework of this complexity include socio-cultural factors, linguistic factors, and classroom instruction. One needs only to consider the difficulty of simultaneously learning to read, write, and speak a foreign language — particularly one where the sounds do not always correspond to spellings on the page — while absorbing a new culture, to appreciate that this is a daunting task. The research literature further shows that reading success is limited by second-language vocabulary development (Garcia & Jensen, 2007; Gottardo, 2002; Proctor et al., 2005), and that vocabulary building depends, in turn, on reading.

While a strong body of literary research exists, there is also a need for additional research into reading comprehension — specifically regarding effective strategies for ELL students. This paper explores the use of Thinking Maps® to enhance comprehension for ESL learners.

The Problem of Language and Learning to Read

ESL instruction in the classroom is a sensitive topic, and resistance to bilingual education is strong. The role of the educational system is to provide an English-language education — particularly to those who do not yet know English — and to do so as efficiently as possible (Bennett, 1999). Bilingual education has become politicized and conflated with attitudes aimed at promoting cultural diversity, and has failed to deliver its promise of improved test scores. These positions are not uncontested among the proponents of bilingual education (Freeman & Freeman, 2007; Riches & Genesee, 2006; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Others argue that the academic failure of minority-language students is not simply a school matter but carries deep social implications.

Two theoretical propositions are currently in contention in the academic debate over how students come to know what they know. One school, the Cognitive Rationalist, posits that cognitive skills are innate and that individuals construct knowledge through their interactions with the world. The other, the Socio-cultural school, holds that interactions with others and society's socio-cultural processes create these cognitive skills (National Research Council, 1997; Tomasello, 1999). Researchers aim to influence educators to improve classroom instruction, often emphasizing the use of theoretically grounded teaching methods. Educators favoring the Cognitive Rationalist perspective tend to support bilingual education for limited English proficient (LEP) students, while socio-culturalists favor classroom environments where English is the only language of instruction (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996).

Graphic Organizers

A graphic organizer is a visual representation that aids students and teachers in recalling, retrieving, and transferring information; making connections; and increasing reading comprehension (Hyerle, 2000). Graphic organizers were developed as a result of Ausubel's (1960) research into the potential benefits of using an advance organizer as a pre-reading tool to connect prior knowledge and enhance the acquisition of new knowledge. Research has validated the use of graphic organizers in increasing student achievement and reading comprehension (Hyerle, 2000; Merkely & Jeffries, 2000). Studies have further supported that the effective use of graphic organizers requires explicit teacher instruction, modeling, and regular use before students can successfully and independently generate them to facilitate their own comprehension (Griffin, 1995; Hyerle, 2000; Merkely & Jefferies, 2000). It is therefore important that teachers fully understand the instructional needs of their students and receive the tools necessary for successful implementation of graphic organizers.

McCoy and Ketterlin-Geller's (2004) research utilized a concept-based instructional model specifically designed to accommodate students with a variety of learning needs and to aid in the understanding and retention of text material. Graphic organizers were used to illuminate concepts by constructing visuals and linking prior knowledge to new learning, thereby deepening and extending student understanding.

Graphic organizers have proven to be effective learning tools that allow students to visualize relationships among concepts, enhancing meaning and promoting greater depth of understanding. However, graphic organizers are often used in isolation and are not always transferable across content areas. By incorporating graphic organizers with specific thought processes, David Hyerle designed Thinking Maps®, a common visual language composed of eight flexible tools used to promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the thinking process. The purpose of the program is to enable students to construct and visually express knowledge through a personal language that links concepts, ideas, and thoughts, accomplished through student-centered and interactive learning (Hyerle, 1996).

Thinking Maps

Thinking Maps (Alper & Hyerle, 2006) were designed by David Hyerle for the Innovative Learning Group, of which he serves as Director of Curriculum and Professional Development. These graphic maps act as a cognitive bridge to literacy by connecting reading through text structures and writing through prompt structures. They are visual patterns used for constructing knowledge and connecting visual imagery with specific abstract thought processes. The eight graphic organizers are used as strategies for specific areas of instruction, each based on a fundamental cognitive process: (1) circle map — defining context and perspective; (2) bubble map — description and characterization; (3) double bubble map — comparison and contrast; (4) tree map — theme, main idea, and details; (5) brace map — setting and physical parts; (6) flow map — chronology and sequence; (7) multi-flow map — problem-solution and conflict; and (8) bridge map — comparison by analogy.

Hyerle (2004) identified five major attributes of Thinking Maps: consistency, flexibility, developmental progression, integration, and reflection. Each map has a consistent form that visually reflects the cognitive skill being used. Using the cognitive skill and the basic graphic as a foundation, the maps can grow and be configured in multiple ways. The learner and the content of the learning determine how the maps develop in complexity. The maps integrate the thinking process across content areas. Thinking Maps are reflective of a student's thinking process and enable teachers to assess both content learning and the thinking process itself.

Conclusion

The review of literature overwhelmingly supports the use of graphic organizers and Thinking Maps® to increase student reading achievement. Visual representations have supplied students with approaches that differ from traditional strategies. Relationships and connections among ideas and concepts become more apparent, and students benefit from the development of higher-order thinking skills. The implications of this review suggest that implementation of the Thinking Maps® program will result in improved reading achievement among students.

Thinking Maps are a specific strategy that acts as a visual framework through which students can construct meaning and connect learning. As a graphic organizer program, Thinking Maps possess the characteristics of effective reading comprehension strategies as well as effective writing strategies. They can act as a cognitive bridge to literacy through the conscious identification of a thinking pattern, mapping it out, and then remembering, analyzing, and synthesizing information into meaningful and purposeful understandings.

References

Alper, L. & Hyerle, D. (2006). Thinking Maps: A language for leadership. Cary, NC: Thinking Maps, Inc.

Anderson, S., Yilmaz, D., & Washburn-Moses, L. (2004). Middle and high school students with learning disabilities: Practical academic interventions for general education teachers — A review of the literature. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 19–38.

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.

Bahr, G. S. & Dansereau, D. F. (2005). Bilingual knowledge maps as a presentation format: Delayed recall and training effects. Journal of Experimental Education, 73(2), 101–118.

Bennett, W. J., Finn, C. E., & Cribb, J. T. (1999). The educated child: A parent's guide from preschool through eighth grade. New York: The Free Press.

Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98.

Boyle, J. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 5–13.

Crawford, D. B. & Carnine, D. (2000). Comparing the effects of textbooks in eighth-grade U.S. history: Does conceptual organization help? Education and Treatment of Children, 23(4), 387–422.

Doyle, C. S. (1999). The use of graphic organizers to improve comprehension of learning disabled students in social studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive practices: A review of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(4), 1–20.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2007). English language learners. New York: Scholastic.

Garcia, E. E. & Jensen, B. (2007). Helping young Hispanic learners. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 34–39.

Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships in second language learning. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacies in second-language learners: A report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth (pp. 153–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gonzales, L. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second language and academic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children in the United States.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(5), 46–70.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Griffin, C. C. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98–107.

Hoffman, J. (2003). Student-created graphic organizers bring complex material to life. College Teaching, 51(3), 105.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22.

Hyerle, D. (2004). Student successes with thinking maps. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118.

McCoy, J. D. & Ketterlin-Geller, R. (2004). Rethinking instructional delivery for diverse student populations: Serving all learners with concept-based instruction. Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(2), 88–95.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics (NCES 2003-007). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey (NCES publication No. 2002-313). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Proctor, C., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256.

Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103–111.

Thernstrom, A. & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tomasello, M. (2001). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wong Fillmore, L. & Meyer, L. (1992). The curriculum and linguistic minorities. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 626–658). New York: Macmillan Publishing.