Mnemonic instruction, with a focus on transfer.

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell N. Carney ◽  
Joel R. Levin
Keyword(s):  
1989 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Margo A. Mastropieri

A sizeable number of research studies have demonstrated the potential of mnemonic instruction with learning disabled (LD) students. However, reports of actual classroom applications of this type of instruction are lacking. In the present investigation, three classrooms of LD junior-high-school-age students were taught U.S. history content over an 8-week period, in which mnemonic and nonmnemonic materials were alternated. Evaluation of chapter test scores indicated that students learned significantly (and substantially) more information when instructed mnemonically, and that they were assigned higher grades for chapters which had been instructed mnemonically. Furthermore, teacher ratings indicated that mnemonic materials were significantly more appropriate for the needs of LD students than traditional textbook-based materials. Implications for future research and practice are addressed.


1986 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 811-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Laufenberg ◽  
Thomas E. Scruggs

24 mildly handicapped students were taught two 9-digit numbers in a cross-over design in which number of digits and order of presentation of condition were counterbalanced. In the cluster-rehearsal condition, students were taught the digit series in clusters of three with overt experimenter-led rehearsal. In the mnemonic condition, numbers were transformed into isomorphic pictorial representations of concrete objects and pictured as appearing on the head, hand, and foot of a man, woman, and child, respectively, in each of three pictures. Free and cued recall scores were collected on immediate and three delayed recall intervals, and scored for position, sequence, and span scores. Recall data were obscured by ceiling effects but consistently favored mnemonic instruction. Cued recall scores collapsed across recall intervals statistically favored mnemonic instruction according to nonparametric tests. In addition, as in previous investigations of mnemonic instructions, response latencies were significantly greater under mnemonic instruction. Finally, collapsed item-position scores showed bowed serial-position curves in cluster-rehearsal but not mnemonic conditions. Implications for further research are given.


2003 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 56-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Zrebiec Uberti ◽  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Margo A. Mastropieri

1985 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margo A. Mastropieri ◽  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Barbara McLoone ◽  
Joel R. Levin

Thirty-six learning disabled junior-high school students were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions to learn three dichotomous classifications for each of eight minerals: hardness level (hard-soft), color (pale-dark), and common use (home-industry). In the direct-instruction condition, students were taught the mineral classifications according to the principles of direct instruction (i.e., student participation with repeated practice and reinforcement). In the mnemonic-instruction condition, students were shown thematic illustrations that integrated each of the minerals and its symbolized attribute classifications. Finally, in the free-study condition, students were instructed to learn the eight minerals using whichever method they chose. Results showed that students who learned via mnemonic instruction outperformed those who were allowed free study. The latter group, in turn, outperformed the direct-instruction subjects. Implications for classroom instruction are drawn.


1972 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 295-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin G. Aiken

A comparison was made between a mnemonic instruction intended to generate intraverbal processes with one intended to generate imaginal processes as aids to the recall of noun-noun paired-associates. Trial number and duration, and intent to learn were varied factorially with mnemonic instruction. Results indicate superior recall for Ss given imaginal instructions, for Ss intending to learn, and for Ss receiving more but shorter trials over those receiving fewer but longer trials. An interaction between mnemonic instruction and intent to learn reached the borderline of significance. The data are interpreted as inferential support for a dual, pictorial-intraverbal memory storage model.


1993 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Margo A. Mastropieri ◽  
G. Sharon Sullivan ◽  
L. Susan Hesser

This investigation sought to determine whether elaborative interrogation techniques would facilitate recall of information relevant to, but not included in, mnemonic and representational pictures. Fifty-three adolescents with learning disabilities or mild mental retardation were taught information about nine reasons for dinosaur extinction, ranked in order of plausibility. In the direct teaching condition, students were provided with each ordered reason and an explanation for why that reason may have resulted in dinosaur extinction. In the elaborative interrogation condition, students were provided with each ordered reason and prompted and questioned to provide an explanation for each. In the mnemonic elaborative interrogation condition, students were provided with mnemonic peg-words to facilitate recall of the ordered reasons for dinosaur extinction and also coached and prompted to provide explanations. Students' recall of ordered reasons was higher in the mnemonic elaborative interrogation condition, and students in the two elaborative interrogation conditions recalled more explanations than did students in the direct teaching condition. Further, students in both elaborative interrogation conditions more accurately linked reasons with explanations for those reasons. Findings are discussed with respect to previous findings of mnemonic instruction. Implications for teaching students with mild cognitive disabilities are provided.


1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah G. Kemler ◽  
Peter W. Jusczyk

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document