Learning disabled students from two selfcontained classrooms and one resource program in an inner-city school were taught U.S. states and their capitals in a counterbalanced design across classrooms over a five-week period. Students were taught, in alternating weeks, by either a complex mnemonic strategy or a more traditional procedure. Students scored statistically (and substantially) higher on items taught mnemonically than on items taught traditionally on a 5-week cumulative recall test. The mnemonic advantage was maintained whether students were required to provide either forward (capital) or backward (state) information, although students scored significantly higher in recall of states, regardless of condition. For mnemonically instructed items, significant correlations were found between performance and reported strategy usage. In addition, students and teachers greatly preferred mnemonic instructional procedures. Little or no evidence was found of spontaneous transfer of the mnemonic strategy across instructional conditions. Implications for practice are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR.C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second language learning. American Psychologist, 20, 821–828.
2.
BakerJ.G.CeciS.J., & HerrmannD. (1987). Semantic structure and processing: Implications for the learning disabled child. In SwansonH.L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 83–109). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
BorkowskiJ.G.WeyhingR.S., & CarrM. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.
4.
Duncan-MaloneL., & MastropieriM.A. (in press). Reading Comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children.
5.
EnglertC.S. (1990). Unraveling the mysteries of writing through strategy instruction. In ScruggsT.E. and B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.) Intervention Research in Learning Disabilities (pp. 186–223). New York: Springer-Verlag.
6.
FergusonG.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (Fifth Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
7.
FulkB.J.M.MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (1992). Mnemonic generalization training with learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 2–10.
8.
HarrisK.R. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity: Effects on on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 417–423.
9.
LloydJ.W., & LandrumT.J. (1990). Self-recording of attending to task: Treatment components and generalization of effects. In ScruggsT.E.& WongB.Y.L. (Eds.) Intervention Research in Learning Disabilities (pp. 235–262). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10.
MastropieriM.A. (1983). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13.
MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (1988). Increasing the content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research, 4 (1), 17–25.
14.
MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (1989a). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
15.
MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (1989b). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education,20 (3), 40–46.
16.
MastropieriM.A., & ScruggsT.E. (in press). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically.Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
17.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & FulkB.J.M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 92–96.
18.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & ShiahS.R.L. (1991). Mathmetics instruction with learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 89–98.
19.
McLooneB.B.ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A., & ZuckerS. (1986). Memory strategy instruction and training with LD adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 45–53.
20.
PressleyM.BorkowskiJ.G., & O'SullivanJ.T. (1984). Memory strategy is made of this: Metamemory and durable strategy use. Educational Psychologist, 19, 94–107.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (1984). Issues in generalization: Implications for special education. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 397–403.
23.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (1989). Mnemonic instruction of learning disabled students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119–125.
24.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory investigations to classroom applications. Journal of Special Education, 24, 7–29.
25.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (in press a). Classroom applications of mnemonic science instruction: Acquisition, maintenance and generalization. Exceptional Children.
26.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (in press b). Effective mainstreaming strategies for mildly handicapped students. Elementary School Journal.
27.
ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (in press c). Mnemonic instruction for learning disabled students: What it is and what it does. Learning Disability Quarterly.
28.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A.McLooneB.B.LevinJ.R., & MorrisonC. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of text-embedded science facts with LD students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27–34.
29.
VeitD.ScruggsT.E., & MastropieriM.A. (1986). Extended mnemonic instruction with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 300–308.
