In two experiments, learning-disabled (LD) students were taught attributes of North American minerals via mnemonic instruction, free study, or a visual-spatial display condition similar to that proposed by Engelmann and Carnine (1982). In the first experiment, 36 junior-high-school-age LD students were taught specific attribute values (e.g., hardness = 1,2, 3; color = pink, green; use = radios, acid, jewelry). In the second experiment, 36 elementary-age students were taught dichotomous attribute classifications (hard vs. soft; pale vs. dark; home vs. industrial use). In both experiments, students learned significantly more information in the mnemonic condition, and students in the visual-spatial condition did not statistically exceed free-study students in total amount learned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR.C., & RaughM.R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104,126-133.
2.
BeckerW.C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543. The “pictures per se” argument is further challenged by the results of a recent dissertation study by Tolfa (1985). In her study, Tolfa taught middle-school LD children facts about dinosaurs using either mnemonic pictures or visual-spatial displays that included representational pictures (actual pictures of dinosaurs). As in the present study, mnemonic instruction was clearly superior to visual-spatial display instruction. Such results confirm previous conclusions concerning nonmnemonic illustrations' negligible effects on students' associative memory for factual information (Levin & Pressley, in press).
3.
BeckerW.C.EngelmannS.CarnineD.W., & MaggsA. (1982). Direct instruction technology: Making learning happen. In KarolyP. & SteffenJ.J. (Eds.), Improving children's competence: Advances in child behavioral analysis and therapy (Vol. 1). Lexington, MA: Heath.
4.
CarnineD., & SilbertJ. (1979). Direct instruction reading.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
5.
DansereauD.F., & HolleyC.D. (1982). Develoment and evaluation of a text mapping strategy. In HammerA. & KintschW. (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 536–554). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6.
DarchC., & CarnineD. (1985, April). Content area instruction: The role of information organization, learner strategies, and task structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
7.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.New York: Irvington Publishers.
8.
EngelmannS.DavisK., & DavisG. (1981). Your world of facts (Level 1). Eugene, OR: E-B Press.
EvansR.A., & KerstS.M. (1983, April). The effects of induced imagery and imposed synonyms upon prose comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
11.
GerstenR. (1983). Direct instruction with special education students: A review of evaluation research. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
12.
JensenA.R., & RohwerW.D.Jr. (1963). The effect of verbal mediation on the learning and retention of paired-associates by retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 68, 80–84.
LevinJ.R. (1973). Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A test of a recent model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,19-24.
16.
LevinJ.R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F.J. Pirozzolo & M.C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.
17.
LevinJ.R. (1982). Pictures as prose-learning devices. In FlammerA. & KintschW. (Eds.), Discourse processing(pp. 412–444). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
18.
LevinJ.R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Practical illustrations. In PressleyM. & LevinJ.R. (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 213–237). New York: Springer-Verlag.
19.
LevinJ.R.JohnsonD.D.PittelmanS.D.HayesB.L.LevinK.M.ShribergL.K., & Toms-BronowskiS. (1984). A comparison of semantic-and mnemonic-based vocabulary-learning strategies. Reading Psychology, 5,1-15.
20.
LevinJ.R.McCormickC.B.MillerG.E.BerryJ.K., & PressleyM. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19,121-136.
21.
LevinJ.R., & PressleyM.(in press). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What's fact, what's fiction. In R.F. Dillon & R.R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
22.
LevinJ.R.ShribergL.K., & BerryJ.K. (1983). A concrete strategy for remembering abstract prose. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 277–290.
23.
LloydJ.CullinanD.HeinsE., & EpsteinM. (1980). Direct instruction: Effects on oral and written language comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3,70-76.
24.
MartinC.J.BoersmaF.J.,& CoxD.L. (1965). A classification of associative strategies in paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 3, 455–456.
25.
MastropieriM.A.PetersE.E.KulhavyR.W., & LeeB. (1982, April). Spatial organizers as schema for prose recall with learning disabled students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento.
26.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & LevinJ.R. (1983). Pictorial mnemonic strategies for special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 6, 24–33.
27.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & LevinJ.R. (1985). Memory strategy instruction with learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18,94-100.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.McLooneB., & LevinJ.R. (in press). Facilitating the acquisition of science classifications in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly.
30.
PressleyM., & LevinJ.R. (1977). Developmental differences in subjects' associative-learning strategies and performance: Assessing a hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 431–439.
31.
PressleyM., & LevinJ.R. (1978). Developmental constraints associated with children's use of the keyword method of foreign language learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 359–372.
32.
PressleyM., & LevinJ.R. (in press). Elaborative learning strategies for the inefficient learner. In S.J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
PressleyM.LevinJ.R., & DelaneyH.D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61–91.
34.
RaughM.R., & AtkinsonR.C. (1975). A mnemonic method for learning a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,1-16.
35.
RosenshineB. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In PetersonP.L. & WalbergH.J. (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
36.
RowherW.D.Jr., Raines, J.M., EoffJ., & Wagner, M. (1977). The development of elaborative propensity in adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 472–492.
37.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (in press). Spontaneous elaboration in gifted and non-gifted youths. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
38.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A., & LevinJ.R. (1985). Vocabulary acquisition of retarded students under direct and mnemonic instruction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 546–551.
39.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A.LevinJ.R., & GaffneyJ.S. (in press). Facilitating the acquisition of science facts in learning disabled students. American Educational Research Journal.
40.
SprickR.S. (1979).A comparison of recall scores for visual-spatial, visual-serial, and auditory presentation of intermediate grade content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
41.
TolfaD. (1985). Effectiveness of extended mnemonic instruction with learning-disabled students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University.
