Printer Friendly

Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: acquisition, maintenance, and generalization.

Mnemonic (memory-enhancing) strategy instruction recently has emerged as one of the most powerful instructional techniques in special education for promoting the acquisition of academic content (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989a; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1990). Mnemonic instruction improves recall by systematically integrating specific retrieval routes within to-be-learned content. A variety of techniques can be used to serve this purpose. For example, to teach that vituperation is a word designating abusive speech, learners first are taught a keyword (e.g., Mastropieri, 1988) for the unfamiliar term, vituperation. In this case, viper is a good keyword for vituperation, because it is acoustically similar to vituperation, and can be pictured. The resulting mnemonic picture would depict a viper speaking abusively to someone, therefore effectively integrating the pictured concept with the keyword. When asked to retrieve the definition of "vituperation," then, learners are asked to first think of the keyword, viper, think back to the picture with the viper in it, and think of what was happening in the picture to retrieve the information, "abusive speech."

Numerous research studies have demonstrated the remarkable potential of mnemonic instruction for special education when applied in laboratory-type settings with experimental content, such as vocabulary lists and brief lists of facts (e.g., Berry, 1986; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Levin, 1985b; 1987). It also has been shown that mnemonic instruction can be used to learn abstract as well as concrete information, and that it has a facilitative effect on comprehensive and recall (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990; Scruggs, Mastropieri, McLoone, Levin, & Morrison, 1987).

Recent investigations have explored curriculum and classroom applications of these strategies. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1989b) taught adolescents with mild disabilities information about World War I using either a variety of mnemonic techniques ("reconstructive elaborations") or a more traditional drill-and-practice condition, which included pictures of the type found in textbooks. Students in the mnemonic condition recalled substantially more content than more traditionally taught students, and the former group maintained this advantage over a 3-4-day delayed recall interval. In addition, each type of "reconstructive elaboration," including strategies for learning and remembering familiar-concrete, familiar-abstract, unfamiliar, and serial-list information, was associated with significantly higher performance than traditional instruction. Other investigations validated the efficacy of these techniques when used in special education] classrooms over extended time periods (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1988, 1989b; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1989a).

Although results of these initial implementation studies were positive, several issues were not addressed. First, although mnemonic instruction was highly successful in promoting learning of social studies content, would the same be true of more conceptually oriented science content? Some initial abstract science concepts have been taught using mnemonic procedures (Mastropieri, Emerick, & Scruggs, 1988; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990); however, longer term mnemonic instruction in science has not been attempted.

Given that science content can be taught mnemonically, another issue is the extent to which students with mild disabilities can learn to transfer or generalize mnemonic strategies across content to further their own learning. Another important purpose of this investigation, then, was to investigate the extent to which such students could transfer complex mnemonic strategies to additional science content, and to evaluate any costs or tradeoffs that may arise in, for example, total amount of content learned, as a result of such training.

Some success previously has been achieved in promoting strategy generalization of mnemonic strategies with students with mild disabilities. McLoone, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Zucker (1986) trained students with learning disabilities to transfer use of the keyword method between English and Italian vocabularies. In this instance, generalization was achieved on experimental vocabulary lists in a highly structured training session. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1988), however, reported no evidence of spontaneous strategy transfer to novel content after 2, or even 6 weeks, of daily mnemonic instruction. Clearly, if mnemonic strategy transfer is to occur, several important training components must be included. Based on previous research with mnemonic and other congitive strategies, these components should include (a) previous successful experience using strategy (McLoone et al., 1986), (b) explicit generalization training procedures (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1987), and (c) attribution training (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988). In the latter component, success in learning is attributed directly to specific strategy use, rather than, for instance, more general indicators such as ability, effort, or luck.

This investigation was designed to address, at least in part, all the preceding questions. A training program was implemented, in which 4 weeks of instruction were delivered over a 5-week period, in preexisting special education classrooms. During the first 2 weeks of instruction, two units of life science content were delivered in a within-subjects, crossover design in which treatment order (mnemonic and traditional) was counter-balanced. The third week of instruction consisted of an implementation of mnemonic instruction of earth science content, to ensure that all students had the same recency of mnemonic instruction, and to evaluate the ability of students with mild disabilities to profit from mnemonic instruction of earth science content. During the fourth and final week of instruction, students were provided with another unit of earth science content, as well as instruction in group generation and depiction of mnemonic strategies. Finally, students were asked to rate the three types of instruction they had received (traditional, mnemonic, and mnemonic transfer) with respects to several cognitive and affective variables.



Subjects were 20 learning disabled (n = 19) and mildly mentally handicapped (n = 1) students attending two self-contained special education classes in middle school in a small midwestern community. The sample included 13 sixth graders, 3 seventh graders, and 4 eighth graders, who had a mean chronological age of 13 years, 8 months (Sd = 12 months.) The 7 girls and 13 boys had an average Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised score of 80.1 (SD = 8.4), an average reading percentile score of 6.9 (SD = 6.4), and an average math percentile score of 5.4 (SD = 4.9), from the Basic Achievement Skills Individual Screener (1983). The sample included 1 Black and 19 Caucasian students who were attending special education classes daily, but were mainstreamed for two of three periods (out of seven) per day. All students had been enrolled in special education classes since approximately third grade. Students had been identified as learning disabled or mildly mentally handicapped in accordance with state and federal guidelines.


Materials were develop0ed specifically for this investigation and were based on the textbook Principles of Science (Heimler & Neal, 1986). This text was widely adopted for junior high school use in the state in which the investigation was conducted. Materials included important content from four chapters (9, 10, 16, 17): (a) vertebrate animals, (b) invertebrate animals, (c) earth history, and (d) geology. For both sets of materials (mnemonic and traditional), teacher presentation scripts, overhead transparencies, and student booklets were included. Each set of materials is described in the following sections.

Mnemonic Condition Materials. For the mnemonic condition, pictures were developed to represent all important content information, according to the model of reconstructive elaborations (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989c). When information was considered to be concrete and familiar to mildly handicapped learners, mimetic reconstructions were developed in which target stimulus and response information was depicted interacting pictorially. For instance, to teach that earth worms live in the earth, have segmented bodies, and have many hearts, a representational picture was constructed of an earthworm with a segmented body and many hearts, living in the earth, as shown in Figure 1. This mimetic reconstruction was employed because it was thought that learners were familiar with all relevant concepts, and the interaction of these concepts was what was being taught. Depicting the interaction of all this information pictorially was intended to make the information more concrete and explicit for learners.

For abstract information, symbolic reconstructions were employed, in which symbolized pictorial representations are shown pictorially interacting with relevant target information. For example, to teach that birds are warm-blooded, a warm, sunny scene was depicted to symbolize warm-blooded. Since birds were thought to be both concrete and familiar to target learners, a mimetic picture of a bird was shown in a warm, sunny scene, as in Figure 2. Again, the direct interaction of the bird with the sunny scene was intended to facilitate acquisition of the target information, that birds are warm-blooded.

When information was considered to be unfamiliar to learners, acoustic reconstructions were employed, in which target information was linked with acoustically similar keywords. For instance, to teach that "radial symmetry" refers to structurally similar body parts that extend out from the center of certain organisms, such as starfish, an acoustically similar keyword, ("radio cemetery") was constructed from the unfamiliar term, radial symmetry. In the picture, a radio cemetery was shown in the shape of a star, with radios as headstone, and skeletons dancing to the music from the radios. Each arm of the star is shown to be similar in appearance to each other arm, to enforce the concept, as shown in Figure 3. For another example, to tach that trichina is a roundworm found in uncooked pork and that the worm causes illness in humans, the keyword "trick" was employed to depict trichina. Since "trick" is not entirely concrete, a verbal elaboration was presented of trichina springing from a pig and saying, "I have a trick . . . I'll make you sick!" as in Figure 4.

Mnemonic pictures were developed for three of the four chapters. These pictures, as shown in Figures 1-4, were copied on transparencies for use with overhead projectors. In addition, teacher scripts provided information on the target content, as well as mnemonic retrieval information. For example, for the trichina picture, the accompanying teacher script read as follows:

When people eat pork (from pigs) that is not cooked all the way, they can get a disease called trichinosis. Severe muscle pains, fever, and weakness are the symptoms of this disease. Trichinosis is caused by a parasitic roundworm named trichina. [Note: "parasite" and "roundworm" had previously been taught mnemonically.]

To help you remember that trichina is a roundworm parasite (or parasitic roundworm) that comes from pigs and makes people sick, think of the keyword for trichina: trick. What is the keyword for trichina? (Elicit responses.) Think of this picture of a person about to eat pork that isn't cooked all the way, when he sees a roundworm pop out of a pig. The trichina is a roundworm and a parasite that is living inside the pig. The trichina says, "I have a trick . . . I'll make you sick!" This will help you remember that trichina are parasitic roundworms that come from pigs and make people sick. What is a trichina? What do you think of when I ask you for the name of a parasitic roundworm that comes from pigs and makes people sick? (Elicit responses and provide feedback.) Tell me everything you can about trichina. What is a parasitic roundworm that comes from pigs and makes people sick? (Elicit response and provide feedback.)

In addition to mnemonic transparancies and teacher scripts, student workbooks and worksheets were included. The workbooks included the mnemonic picture and accompanying target information, without strategy information, while the worksheets included practice activities, such as relabeling and describing unlabeled mnemonic pictures.

Mnemonic materials for the generalization unit contained target information, but did not include mnemonic pictures or descriptions of mnemonic strategies. Instead, blank spaces were left in student workbooks. Students were encouraged to draw their own mnemonic pictures in these spaces, in the place of workbook activities. In addition, teachers used overhead transparencies containing the typewritten target information.

Traditional Instruction Condition

Materials in the traditional instruction condition paralleled those in the mnemonic condition, with the exception that no mnemonic strategy information was provided. For example, the overhead transparencies consisted of target information only, without reference to mnemonic elaboration. Teacher scripts were the same as those in the mnemonic condition, with strategy information deleted. In addition, students were given workbooks identical to mnemonic condition workbooks, with the exception that all mnemonic strategy information was deleted. Student worksheets were taken from the published materials to accompany the text and included traditional practice activities on target information, such as matching and fill-in-the-blank activities. Traditional instructional materials were developed for the two life science units.

Design and Analysis

Training Phase. To avoid problems associated with random subject assignment in school settings, classroom effects, and differential attrition, a crossover design was employed in which each of two special education classrooms received both mnemonic and traditional instruction for life science, with units (vertebrate and invertebrate) counterbalanced across classrooms. Generalization Phase. The third training week was delivered mnemonically to both classes, to prepare them for the generalization week to follow. Effectiveness of strategy training was evaluated by comparing each subject's score on items for which strategy information was recalled, with his or her score on items for which relevant strategy information was not recalled. Effectiveness of generalization training, the fourth week, was evaluated in the same manner.


Training Phase. Project staff, consisting of certified special education teachers, administered training in the two classrooms, with the regularly assigned special education teacher in attendance. Due to a schools' spring break, the first and second units were separated by a period of 1 week. Each instructional unit (including the third and fourt units) was taught for 1 week, consisting of four 50-min lessons, followed by a unit test on the fifth day. A review was provided on the fourth day but not on the fifth day before the test. In all cases, for both conditions, teaching employed the principles of effective instruction, as described by Mastropieri and Scruggs (1987). The overall difference in instruction between the two conditions was that, in the traditional condition, no explicit strategy or retrieval information was provided to learners. Instead, students were told to work hard and try their best. All training sessions were observed and videotaped by project staff.

After each unit of instruction, students were individually administered a 23- or 27-item production test, in which they were asked to state verbally answers to all target questions, such as "What is radial symmetry?" Also, for each item, students were asked to state how they had remembered the information. After the end of testing for the generalization unit, students were also administered a surprise delayed-recall test of a sample of eight items from the first 2 weeks of instruction, as well as strategy questioning for these items.

Generalization Phase. The third week of instruction, on earth history, was administered by the regular special education teachers; it served to prepare students for the generalization unit to follow. On the fifth day, students were again administered a unit test, followed by strategy questioning.

The generalization unit, on geology, was again administered by project staff. First, teachers presented the important information verbally to the class, as well as used the corresponding overhead transparency. Then, instead of providing the students with the mnemonic strategy and picture, teachers said, for example,

Now, what would be a good way to remember this information? Remember how we used the keywords and pictures to help us remember before? Can anyone think of a keyword for this important information [e.g., the earth's core is made of iron and nickel]? Remember the keyword can be the same word or sounds like the word we need to remember. Also remember that the keyword has to be easily pictured.

Teachers then began to elicit keywords from students and wrote all student responses on the blackboard. For the example of "earth's core," some studnets thought of "door," "ore," "cord," and "apple core." Following the generation of the list of keywords, teachers prompted the students to select one of the most appropriate keywords (in their judgment). The criteria used by teachers consisted of similarity of acoustic properties, concreteness, and the degree to which the keyword could be easily drawn. Teachers restated the criteria when selecting the class keyword. Next, teachers prompted students to think of the keyword doing something together with the to-be-learned information. In the earth's core, example, teachers stated, for example, "Now what would be a good picture of a 'door' doing something together with iron and nickel?" (one class used apple core, while the other class used door for the keyword for core). Again, teachers elicited responses from all students. Following this, teachers drew the interactive illustration on the overhead transparency and had students draw their picture in the student workbooks. While students were drawing, teachers circulated around the room and provided feedback. This activity replaced workbook practice activities that were used in the previous mnemonic conditions. In both classrooms, teachers ensured that all students contributed to the generation of mnemonic strategies and interactive illustrations.

Finally, throughout the instruction teachers provided explicit attribution training with the strategy instruction. Teachers consistently referred to success or failure as being directly attributable to the strategy and students' ability to use the strategy, rather than any other internal or external sources. One statement used was the following, "You have learned this information so well because you used this good strategy." In summary, teachers promoted effective generalization throughout the instruction by (a) referring students back to previous mnemonic instruction, (b) providing explicit prompting and feedback for keyword and interactive image generation (see Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989c), (c) providing feedback on mnemonic drawings, and (d) providing explicit attribution training.

On the fifth day of generalization instruction, students were given a test on the content covered to that point. After each test item, students were again asked to describe how they had recalled the information.

Survey Information. During the week following the generalization unit, project staff reviewed with students the three types of instruction each had been exposed to: traditional, mnemonic, and mnemonic transfer. Students were asked to rate these types of instruction with respect to (a) how much they enjoyed the instruction, (b) how much they had learned, (c) how hard they had tried, and (d) how much they would like to use the method again.

Scoring. Students were awarded one point for each test item answered correctly, and one point for each mnemonic strategy correctly described. One hundred percent agreement was reached on these scores by two raters unaware of training condition.


Training Phase

Test score data were entered into a 2 X 2 (Classroom X Instructional Unit) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the instructional unit variable. Because the two unit tests differed somewhat in number of items, scores were converted to proportion correct; therefore, statistics are reported on arcsin-transformed proportion scores (Ferguson, 1982).

Significant main effects due to instruction were not possible because type of instruction varied systematically across both classrooms and instructional units. In fact, neither classroom effect, F(1,16) = 2.77, p = .116, nor instructional unit effect, F(1.16) = .12, p = .734, was statistically significant. However, a very strong effect was found for Classroom x Instructional Unit interaction, F(1,16) = 87.57, p < .001. Simple effects analyses of this interaction revealed that, in each classroom, performance was substantially higher under mnemonic instruction, as shown in Figure 5 (ps < .05). In Classroom 1, the mnemonic instructional advantage was 77.8% to 44.3$\% correct; in Classroom 2 the mnemonic advantage was 67.9% to 33.3% correct.

On the delayed-recall test (2-4 weeks, counterbalanced across classrooms), it was found that students retained 59.3% of mnemonically instructed information sampled, compared with 38.0% of traditionally instructed information, t(19) = 2.52, p = .022. Reported strategy use was significantly correlated with performance, Pearson r = .529, p = .020.

Generalization Phase

During the third week of training, it was found that implementation of mnemonic instruction by the regularly assigned teachers resulted in similarly high performance scores, with an average of 76.3% (SD = 21.3) items answered correctly. Reported strategy use was also found to be significantly correlated with performance, r = 7.86, p < .001). When students reported using relevant mnemonic strategies, they answered an average of 93.7% (SD = 16.3) items corrected. When they failed to retrieve the relevant strategy, however, they answered an average of only 47.3% (SD = 30.2) correctly. Because of the presence of "ceiling" effects, these data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test (Siegel, 1956), which yielded an equivalent Z = 2.98, p = .003.

During the generalization training unit, students effectively generated their own mnemonic strategies. Mean proportion of content covered that was answered correctly was 52.5% (SD = 21.0), and highly correlated with strategy use, Pearson r = .712, p < .001. When students reported using mnemonic strategies, they answered 99.6% (SD = 1.6) of relevant test items correctly. When they did not report use of mnemonic strategies, they recalled only 12.2% (SD = 20.0), Wilcoxon Z = 2.98, p = .003.

It was also found that substantially less content was covered in the same time period in the generalization unit than when mnemonic strategies were directly taught. Only 33% to 39% as much content was covered during the generalization unit as had been covered during the first or second week of instruction, in which mnemonic strategies were explicitly provided.

Student Survey Information

Students were asked to rate the three forms of science instruction--traditional, mnemonic, and mnemonic transfer--according to how much they enjoyed the instruction, how much they had learned, how hard they had tried, and how much they would enjoy using it again. Nineteen students completed the survey. Table 1 shows that mnemonic instruction, either generated or provided, was overwhelming preferred over traditional instruction. Mnemonic instruction also was generally preferred over mnemonic transfer, which was seen to be associated with the most effort on the parts of students.


In this investigation, it was found that mnemonic instruction can produce strong and lasting effects on the acquisition and maintenance of science content. As seen in previous research, the effect of mnemonic instruction was not only statistically significant, but exceeded by a wide margin (nearly two to one) learning by more traditional, strategy-free instruction. Comparison of student strategy reports with performance information provided further evidence for the powerful facilitative effect of mnemonic strategy use.

Students with mild disabilities have frequently been characterized, by both researchers and teachers, as deficient in the area of semantic memory (e.g., Swanson, 1987). Perhaps one reason mnemonic strategies have been so successful with these learners is that they provide systematic procedures for the retrieval of target information. Students are taught, not only important content,


Student Survey Results
 Mnemonic tional
 Instruc- Mnemonic Instruc-
Question tion Transfer tion
 Most Favored (%)
1. Enjoyed most 68.4 26.3 5.2
2. Learned most 73.7 21.1 5.2
3. Tried hardest 21.1 57.9 15.8
4. Use again 63.2 26.3 10.5
 Least Favored (%)
1. Enjoyed least 0 31.6 68.4
2. Learned least 0 26.3 73.7
3. Tried least 42.1 10.5 47.4
4. Use again 0 36.8 63.2
Note: N = 19.

but also the appropriate encoding strategies for later retrieval of the content. By contrast, most traditional instruction does not provide explicit retrieval information.

This investigation also found that students, as a group, could successfully generate their own mnemonic strategies and apply them to novel content. Evaluation of strategies reports suggested that these strategies were strongly predictive of academic performance. However, it was also found that the pace at which students were able to acquire new content was sharply diminished. Such a finding suggests that the facilitation of mnemonic transfer may be purchased at the expense of the additional content that may have been acquired had mnemonic pictures explicitly been provided. Although learner independence is a major objective of special education programs, it is also true that special educators are obligated to ensure that their students acquire a thorough knowledge base (Scruggs & Mastrropieri, 1984). These objectives may not be mutually exclusive; however, when planning instruction it is important to assign priorities to instructional objectives.

One frequently overlooked factor in instructional research is the expressed opinion of the students for whom the treatment is being evaluated. In the present investigation, information was provided on student acceptability of mnemonic instruction. The students greatly preferred mnemonic instruction over traditional instruction and saw mnemonic instruction as more effective. Most students also appreciated that independent generation of mnemonic strategies involved more cognitive effort than either mnemonic or traditional instruction. Some disagreement did emerge, however, concerning enjoyment of the mnemonic transfer unit. Nevertheless, student survey data provided overwhelming support for some form of mnemonic instruction over more traditional methods.

In this investigation, mnemonic instruction has proven highly effective for teaching science content. However, this should not be taken to mean that mnemonic instruction can or should be used to meet all instructional objectives in science. As we have argued previously (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Levin, 1987), mnemonic instruction, as powerful as it has been shown to be, is not an educational panacea. In all special education practice, specific instructional procedures must be directly linked with specific instructional objectives. However, when the instructional objectives involve the acquisition and retention of discriminations, concepts, facts, rules, or procedures (see Mastropieri & Scruggs, in press), mnemonic instruction may very well be the optimal procedure.


Basic Achievements Skills Individual Screener. (1983). Paramus, NJ: Psychological Corporation.

Berry, J. (1986). Learning disabled children's use of mnemonic strategies for vocabulary learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy based reading comprehension in learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53.

Ferguson, G. (1982). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Heimler, C. H., & Neal, C.D. (1986). Principles of science (Book 1). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Mastropieri, M. A. (1988). Using the keyword method. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 20(2), 4-8.

Mastropieri, M.A., Emerick, K., & Scruggs, T.E. (1988). Mnemonic instruction of science concepts. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 48-56.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education. Boston: Little, Brown/College Hill.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1988). Increasing the content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 17-25.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1989a). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Education Psychology Review, 1, 83-111.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989b). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 40-46.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1989c). Reconstructive elaborations: Strategies for adapting content area learning. Academic Therapy, 24, 391-406.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (in press). Teaching students to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Cambridge, MA: Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T.E., & Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects of recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 92-96, 107.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. 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.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T.E., & Levin, J. R. (1985b). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 94-100.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scrugs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. 1987). Mnemonic strategies in special education. In M. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imaginal and mnemonic processes (pp. 358-376). New York: Springer-Verlag.

McLoone, B. B., Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A. & Zucker, S. (1986). Mnemonic strategy instruction and training with learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 45-53.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1984). Issues in generalization: Implications for special education. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 397-403.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropier, M. A. (1989a). Mnemonic instruction of LD students: A field-based evaluation Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 119-125.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1989b). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 311-327.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory investigations to classroom applications. Journal of Special Education, 24, 7-32.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Levin, J. R. 1987). Implications of mnemonic strategy instruction for theories of learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Advances in learning and behavior disabilities: Memory and learning disabilities (pp. 225-244). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., McLoone, B. B., Levin, J. R., & Morrison, C. (1987). Mnemonic facilitation of learning disabled students' memory for expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 27-34.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Swanson, H. L. (Ed.). (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich, CT: JAI.


Thomas E. SCruggs (CEC Chapter #110) and Margo A. Mastropieri (CEC Chapter #762) are Professors of Special Education in the Department of Educational Studies of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Support for this project was provided in part from grants (G008730144-89 and H029D80034) from the U.S. Department of Education, Special Education Programs. We thank John Commer and Charles Arvin, Superintendents; Don Fine, the principal; Sue Hesser, Debbie Hatke, and Jodi Chase, the teachers; and the students of Tuttle Middle School, Crawfordsville, Indiana, for their participation in this project. We also think Terri Milham, Lori Baker, Barbara Fulk, Keith Butz, and Sharlene Shiah for their assistance during the implementation of this project.

Manuscript received June 1989; revision accepted March 1990.
COPYRIGHT 1991 Council for Exceptional Children
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1991 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:for students with mild disabilities
Author:Scruggs, Thomas E.; Mastropieri, Margo A.
Publication:Exceptional Children
Date:Dec 1, 1991
Previous Article:Special education in South Korea.
Next Article:Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement.

Related Articles
Cumulative versus rapid introduction of new information.
The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: interactive strategy construction.
Teacher perceptions of the regular education initiative.
Developing functional requesting: acquisition, durability, and generalization of effects.
Specialized instruction within general education: a case study of one elementary school.
Real world use of scientific concepts: integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction.
Effects of a Graduated Instructional Sequence on the Algebraic Subtraction of Integers by Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities.
Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: effects on young writers with learning disabilities.
A synthesis of content enhancement strategies for teaching students with reading difficulties at the middle and secondary level.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters