Map-like displays containing names of battles of the American Revolution and related battle information were presented to 72 middle school students with learning disabilities (LD). Students were randomly assigned to one of three map conditions that depicted information in a spatial organizational format but varied the symbols used to mark the map. Map symbols included (a) reconstructive elaborations of battle names and associated event information, (b) mnemonic keywords of battle names, and (c) realistic drawings of soldiers, buildings, and so forth. A 3 (organization) by 2 (recall) (location vs. event information) analysis of variance indicated that recall of locations was significantly greater than recall of event information in all conditions, mnemonic encoding resulted in greater recall of locations but not events, and elaborative encoding resulted in greater recall of event information relative to the mnemonic map but greater recall of locations and event information relative to the non-mnemonic map. Student reports of strategy use and implications for instruction of students with LD are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemono-techniques in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821–828.
2.
Bannatyne, A. (1974). Diagnosis: A note on recategorization of WISC scale scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 272–273.
3.
Brigham, F. J. (1992). Spatial learning and instruction of students with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 57–85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4.
Cooney, J. B., & Swanson, H. L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: An overview. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Memory and learning disabilities (pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5.
Dean, R. S. (1978). The influence of spatial organization in prose learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 408B. (University Microfilms No. 78--10, 568)
6.
Dean, R. S., & Enemoh, P. A. (1983). Pictorial organization in prose learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 20–27.
7.
Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). An investigation of mnemonic generalization training including attribution retraining with learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
9.
Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (1984). The development of spatial learning strategies. In C. D. Holley & D. F. Dansereau (Eds.), Spatial learning strategies: Techniques and related issues (pp. 3–19). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10.
Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 106–126.
11.
Jastak, J., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide range achievement test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Assessment Systems.
12.
Kauffman, A. S., & Kauffman, N. L. (1985). Kauffman test of educational achievement-Comprenhensive form. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
13.
Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(1), 28–37.
14.
Lauer, J. M., & Asher, J. W. (1988). Composition research: Empirical designs. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Levine, M. D., Hooper, S., Montgomery, J., Reed, M., Sandler, A., Swartz, C., & Watson, T. (1993). Learning disabilities: An interactive developmental paradigm. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 229–250). Baltimore: Brookes.
16.
Mastropieri, M. A. (1983). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
17.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Mushinski Fulk, B. J. (1990). Enhancing academic performance with mnemonic instruction. In T. E. Scruggs & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 102–121). New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Peters, E. E. (1987). Increasing prose recall of learning disabled and reading disabled students via spatial organizers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 272–276.
19.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
20.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
21.
McClesky, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities at primary, intermediate, and secondary grade levels: Identification and characteristics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 13–19.
22.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
24.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Schwartz, N. H. (1988). Cognitive processing characteristics of maps: Implications for instruction. Educational and Psychological Research, 8, 93–101.
26.
Schwartz, N. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 151–158.
27.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1989). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 267, 331–318.
28.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory research to classroom applications. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 7–32.
29.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58219–229.
30.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M.A., Brigham, F. J., & Sullivan, S. A. (1992). The effect of mnemonic reconstructions on spatial learning. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 154–162.
31.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
Swanson, H. L. (1987). Verbal coding deficit in learning disabled readers: Remembering pictures and words. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Memory and learning disabilities (pp. 263–304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
33.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy deficit model. In T. E. Scruggs & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 34–66). New York: Springer-Verlag.
34.
Swanson, H. L. (1993). Learning disabilities from the perspective of cognitive psychology. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 199–228). Baltimore: Brookes.
35.
Veit, D. T., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1986). Extended mnemonic instruction with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 300–308.
36.
Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 189–264). New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
39.
Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211–247.
40.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, W. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources.
