Over a six-week period, students with learning disabilities in an inner-city middle school were taught the chronological orders of 32 U.S. presidents. For three weeks, they were taught using a modified mnemonic keyword-pegword strategy. For the next three weeks, they were taught using rehearsal and representational pictures. Two weeks subsequent to the six-week instructional period, students were given a delayed posttest in which they were asked to provide the numerical order of the president, given a president name; and the president's name, given the numerical order. Results revealed a significant main effect for instructional condition and a significant condition-by-response interaction, suggesting that information was processed differently, depending on instructional condition. Implications for classroom instruction are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshbakerM.H.SwansonH.L. (1996). Short-term memory and working memory operations and their contribution to reading in adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 205–213.
2.
BriganceA. (1980). Brigance diagnostic inventory of essential skills. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
3.
BrighamF.J.ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1995). Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginal information. Journal of Special Education, 28, 440–460.
4.
BrophyJ. (1992). Fifth graders' ideas about history expressed before and after their introduction to the subject. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20, 440–489.
5.
CondusM.M.MarshallK.J.MillerS.R. (1986). Effects of the keyword mnemonic strategy on vocabulary acquisition and maintenance by learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 609–613.
6.
ConnollyA. (1988). Key Math-Revised: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematics. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
7.
DretzkeB.J.LevinJ.R. (1990). Building factual knowledge about the U.S. presidents via pictorial mnemonic strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 152–169.
8.
FrederickP. (1991). Active learning in history classes. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 16, 67–83.
9.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.A. (1996). The nature of learning disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
King-SearsM.E.MercerC.D.SindelarP.T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonic: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 22–33.
11.
JastakS.WilkinsonG.S. (1984). Wide range achievement test-revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
12.
LevinJ.R.DretzkeB.J.McCormickC.B.ScruggsT.E.McGivernJ.E.MastropieriM.A. (1983). Learning via mnemonic pictures: Analysis of the presidential process. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31, 161–173.
13.
MarkwardtF.C. (1989). Peabody individual achievement test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
14.
MastropieriM.A.PetersE.E. (1987). Increasing prose recall of learning disabled and reading disabled students via spatial organizers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 272–276.
15.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1988). Increasing the content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 17–25.
16.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1989a). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
17.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1989b). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (3), 40–46.
18.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
19.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1994a). Effective instruction for special education (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1994b). Issues in intervention research: Secondary students. In VaughnS.BosC. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Theory, methodology, assessment, and ethics (pp. 130–145). New York: Springer Verlag.
21.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.BakkenJ.BrighamF.J. (1992). A complex mnemonic strategy for teaching states and capitals: Comparing forward and backward associations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 96–103.
22.
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.
23.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.LevinJ.R. (1985a). Maximizing what exceptional students can learn: A review of research on the keyword method and related mnemonic techniques. Remedial and Special Education, 6 (2), 39–45.
24.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.LevinJ.R. (1985b). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 94–100.
25.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.LevinJ.R. (1986). Direct vs. mnemonic instruction: Relative benefits for exceptional learners. Journal of Special Education, 20, 299–308.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E.SturgeonA.GoodwinL.ChungS. (1996). Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Educational Studies.
28.
McLeskeyJ.WaldronN.L. (1990). The identification and characteristics of students with learning disabilities in Indiana. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 72–78.
29.
McLooneB.B.ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A.ZuckerS.F. (1986). Memory strategy instruction and training with LD adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 45–53.
30.
PressleyM.LevinJ. (1987). Elaborative learning strategies for the inefficient learner. In CeciS.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 175–212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
ScruggsT.E.BrighamR. (1990). The challenges of metacognitive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (6), 16–18.
32.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1989a). Mnemonic instruction of learning disabled students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119–125.
33.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1989b). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 311–327.
34.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory investigations to classroom applications. Journal of Special Education, 24, 7–29.
35.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1992). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219–229.
36.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A.McLooneB.B.LevinJ.R.MorrisonC. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of learning disabled students' memory for expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27–34.
37.
SpearL.C.SternbergR.J. (1987). An information-processing framework for understanding reading disability. In CeciS.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 3–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
SwansonH.L. (Ed.). (1987a). Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
39.
SwansonH.L. (1987b). Verbal coding deficit in learning disabled readers: Remembering pictures and words. In SwansonH.L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Supplement 2: pp. 263–305). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
40.
SwansonH.L.GansleK.A. (1994). Specificity and modifiability of working memory in exceptional children: The role of dynamic assessment. In ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 8, pp. 65–104). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
41.
WechslerD. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
42.
WillotP. (1982). The use of imagery as a mnemonic to teach basic multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of West Virginia, Morgantown.
43.
YatesF.A. (1966). The art of memory. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
