Methods

Introduction

This three-phase, quantitative descriptive design study examined the effect of using

compare and contrast graphic organizers on subjects comprehension of informational text. In

addition, the researcher investigated which specific compare and contrast graphic organizer a.)

Venn diagram, b.) bubble map or c.) chart organizer best influenced the subjects performance. In

this chapter, the researcher described in detail the participants, procedures, research design, and

data analysis.

Participants

This study took place at an urban elementary school in the upper Midwest. The school

was made up of approximately 289 students: a.) 45% Caucasian, b.) 28% African-American, c.)

20% Hispanic, and d.) 6% two or more races. At the school, 77% of the students came from

economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Subjects tested included 15 second and third grade

students, eight males and seven females, all between the ages of seven and eight.

Procedure

Prior to this study, the researcher noted a pattern of subjects who struggled with

comprehension of informational text. To help solve this problem, the researcher used daily

explicit instruction with three different compare and contrast graphic organizers in order for

subjects to improve their informational text comprehension. This three-phase study took place

from September through December of 2016. Each compare and contrast graphic organizer: a.)

Venn diagram, b.) bubble map, and c.) chart organizer were taught in two week increments, with

a pre and posttest at the beginning and end of each two weeks. In addition to learning about the

impact of graphic organizers on students comprehension of informational text, the researchers

sub-question was to learn if one specific type of graphic organizer would be most beneficial to

the subjects.

To begin the process, the researcher first needed to collect baseline data. An informational

text found on Reading A-Z (Learning A-Z, 2016) was read aloud to all the subjects. All

informational texts used in this study were found on Reading A-Z and were leveled at third

grade, using the Learning A-Z Text Leveling System (Learning A-Z, 2016). After discussing the

text, subjects were given a writing prompt asking them to compare and contrast the information

from the text. To create a sound study, graphic organizers were not presented or explicitly taught

during the baseline. After the subjects completed the writing prompt, rubrics created by the

researcher (which were copied on the back of the writing prompt) were then used to assess

student answers. At this point in study, the researcher had obtained all subjects baseline

assessment scores that had students compare and contrast an informational text.

The four-step, three phase intervention began right after the baseline assessment. In the

first phase, the researcher introduced, read aloud and discussed, an informational text with the

subjects. Second, subjects were introduced to the first graphic organizer, a Venn diagram

compare and contrast worksheet. Daily explicit instruction and practice was used for two weeks

on how to complete this specific compare and contrast graphic organizer. At the end of the week,

a different informational text was introduced and read aloud. Students were then asked to

complete their own Venn diagram compare and contrast graphic organizer based on the explicit

instruction they received. Last, subjects were given a researcher created writing prompt that

required them to compare and contrast the informational text they worked with (see Appendix

A). This writing prompt was in a similar format as the baseline writing prompt. The rubric

created by the researcher was copied onto the back of the question prompt, so the subjects were
aware of the criteria for the assessment. Once completed, the written responses were graded

using a Standards-Based grading system that is aligned to the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS).

The following two phases, each lasting for two-weeks, were designed similarly to the

first two-week phases. Subjects were introduced to an informational text and a new graphic

organizer. Daily explicit instruction was given on how to use the graphic organizer. Lastly,

subjects were given a text and asked to answer the compare and contrast comprehension

question. At the end of every two-week cycle, the researcher collected the subjects compare and

contrast writing prompts to gauge if explicit instruction using graphic organizers was improving

their abilities to compare and contrast informational text, based on the researchers created

rubric.

The culminating assessment was given after all three compare and contrast graphic

organizers were explicitly taught and worked with by the subjects. The researcher chose a new

informational text to read-aloud to the subjects. The subjects were then given the same writing

prompt they received from the past nine-weeks, asking them to compare and contrast the

information from the text. To answer the researchers sub-question, an additional worksheet

(Appendix B) was given to the subjects to allow them to create any one of the three graphic

organizers they learned about.

Research Design

The researcher crafted this quantitative descriptive design study to evaluate the effect of

using compare and contrast graphic organizers, to impact the comprehension of informational

text. According to Mertler (2014), descriptive research examines something as it exists. In this

study, there was no need to manipulate any conditions. The main instruments used throughout
this study included writing prompts and current research-created rubrics. The writing prompts

given, provided pre and post assessment data to monitor the effectiveness of using graphic

organizers when working with informational text. The researcher-created rubrics attached to

those prompts provided subjects with clear expectations on how to earn a minimal, basic,

proficient, or advanced score (see Appendix C).

Data Analysis

A baseline was given at the beginning and an overall posttest was given at the end.

During each two-week phase, students were pretested and post tested using the correlating

graphic organizer: a.) phase one-Venn diagram, b.) phase two-bubble map, c.) phase three-chart

organizer. Aside from the starting baseline and ending posttest, students completed three pre-tests

and 3 posttests. The current researcher compared the pre and posttest results to note if the use of

graphic organizers improved the comprehension of informational text, as well as noting if one

graphic organizer improved the subjects comprehension. The statistical analyses were performed

on the pre and posttests.