A B S T R A C T Fifty-nine students enrolled in 4 inclusive world history classes in a suburban high school participated in a within-participants research design to compare the relative effects of mnemonic strategies and direct instruction on academic performance. Regularly assigned high school teachers delivered instruction during history class periods. Keywords with interactive illustrations were alternated with direct instruction procedures to teach 2 units of world history to students in Grades 10 and 11 over a 4-week period. The results revealed no significant differences by condition or group on immediate unit tests. On the cumulative delayed recall tests, however, differences were observed by condition and group. An obtained interaction effect revealed that students for whom English was a second language scored significantly higher in the mnemonic condition, whereas no differences were observed for first-language English, general education students, or students with learning disabilities. Analysis of strategy use data revealed that students employed appropriate strategies, and observational data confirmed that student time on task was higher in the mnemonic condition. Survey data revealed general overall satisfaction with mnemonic strategies on the part of teachers and students. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
2.
Avila, E., & Sadoski, M. (1996). Exploring new applications of the keyword method to acquire English vocabulary. Language Learning, 46, 379— 395.
3.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31— 42.
4.
Brigham, F.J., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginal information. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 440—460.
5.
Brophy, J. (1990). Teaching social studies for understanding and higher-order application. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 351—417.
6.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, 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, 3—17.
7.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1994). The effects of a recall enhancement routine on the test performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 2—11.
8.
Copperthwaite, T., Essig, M.A., Hill, K., & Randal, M. (1999, April). Integrating cognitive strategy instruction and the World Wide Web in American History: Mnemonics and elaborative mapping . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Charlotte, NC.
9.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Implications for special education policy and practice: Selected sections of Title I and Title II. Retrieved October 20, 2002, from http://www.cec.sped.org
10.
Doyle, C.S. (1999). The use of graphic organizers to improve comprehension of learning disabled students in social studies. Unpublished master's thesis, Kean University, NJ.
11.
Farah, M.A., Karls, A.B. (1999). World history: The human experience. New York: Glencoe, McGraw Hill .
12.
Fontana, J. (2004). Social studies and students with disabilities: Current status of instruction and a review of intervention research. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 17. Research in secondary schools (pp. 179-210) Oxford , UK: Elsevier.
13.
Forness, S.R. (2001). Special education and related services: What have we learned from meta-analysis?Exceptionality, 9, 185—197.
14.
Hamilton, S.L., Seibert, M.A., Gardner, R., III, & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 133—140.
15.
Harniss, M.K., Hollenbeck, K.L., Crawford, D.B., & Carnine, D.D. (1994). Content organization and instructional design issues in the development of history textbooks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 235— 248.
16.
Higgins, K., Boone, R.A., & Lovitt, T.C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 29, 402—412.
17.
Hockenbury, J.C. (1999). Mnemonic instruction in inclusive classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 322.
18.
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—29.
19.
Jitendra, A., Nolet, V., Xin, Y.P., Gomez, O., Renouf, K., Lubov, I., et al. (2001). An analysis of four middle school geography textbooks: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Di ficulties, 17, 151—173.
20.
Lang, C.R., Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Porter, M. (2004). The effects of self-instructional strategies on problem solving in algebra for students with special needs. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 17. Research in secondary schools (pp. 29—54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
21.
Lerner, J. (2003). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
Maheady, L., Harper, G.F., & Malett, S.K. (1988). A classwide peer tutoring system in a secondary, resource room program for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 21, 76—83.
23.
Mastropieri, M.A. (1983). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
24.
Mastropieri, M.A., Emerick, K., & Scruggs, T.E. (1988). Mnemonic instruction of science concepts. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 48—56.
25.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1988). Increasing content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research,4, 17—25.
26.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1989). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 40—46.
27.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for e fective instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J.L. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52—65.
30.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Whedon, C. (1997). Using mnemonic strategies to teach information about U.S. presidents: A classroom-based investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 13—20.
31.
Mastropieri, M.A., Sweda, J., & Scruggs, T.E. (2000). Putting mnemonics to work in an inclusion classroom . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 34—43.
32.
McCleary, J.A., & Tindall, G.A. (1999). Teaching the scientific method to at-risk students and students with learning disabilities through concept anchoring and explicit instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 7—18.
33.
No Child Left Behind. (2001). The facts about measuring progress. Retrieved October 20, 2002 , from http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov
34.
Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., & Delaney, H.D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61—91.
35.
O'Shaughnessy, T.E., & Swanson, H.L. (1998). Do immediate memory deficits in students with learning disabilities in reading reflect a developmental lag or deficit? A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 123—148.
36.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1989a). Mnemonic instruction of LD students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119—125.
37.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1989b). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content learning. American Education Research Journal, 26, 311—317.
38.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1990a). Mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities: What it is and what it does. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 271—290.
39.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1990b). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory research to classroom applications. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 7—32.
40.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1992). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219—229.
41.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994). Issues in intervention research: Secondary students. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research issues in learning disabilities: Theory, methodology, assessment and ethics (pp. 22—33). New York: Springer Verlag.
42.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 10, 163—173.
43.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2003). Science and social studies . In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 364—379). New York : Guilford.
44.
Siegel, S. (1956) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences . New York: McGraw Hill.
45.
Uberti, H.Z., Scruggs, T.F., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2003). Keywords make a difference: Mnemonic instruction in inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 56—61.
46.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2003). Twenty-fifth annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html
47.
Virginia State Department of Education. (2005 ). Virginia school report card: Standards of learning (SOL) assessment results. Richmond: Author . Retrieved October 18, 2005, at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/src/SOLassessments.shtml
48.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
49.
Woodcock, R.W., Johnson, M.B., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson—III tests of achievement . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
50.
Zhigang, Z., & Schumm, J.S. (2000). Exploring effects of the keyword method on limited English speakers proficient students' vocabulary recall and comprehension . Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 202— 221.
