Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remedial and Special Education Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016 41
and 3 1 % correct, respectively). In both studies, students In these studies, however, students had to learn about
in the direct instruction condition received nearly 40% each mineral's color and common use as well as hard-
more time specifically studying the vocabulary words and ness levels. The basic question here was whether simul-
their meanings (or minerals and hardness levels) than the taneously presented information about multiple attrib-
mnemonic subjects, who spent part of their time learn- utes of minerals could be taught effectively via mnemonic
ing keywords for the to-be-remembered items. procedures.
In one study (Scruggs, Mastropieri, Levin, & Gaffney,
in press), for example, students had to learn that wolf-
ramite is number 4 on the hardness scale, is black in color,
and is used for making lightbulbs. The corresponding
mnemonic illustration depicted a black (color) wo//(key-
word for wolframite) standing on a stage floor (pegword
for number 4) that was lit up with lightbulbs (use). Stu-
dents were told to remember that the keyword for wolf-
ramite was wolf, to think back to the picture of the wolf,
and to recall what else was there. They were told that
the wolf was black because wolframite was black in color;
that, because the wolf was standing on the floor, wolf-
ramite was number 4 on the hardness scale; and that,
In a second experiment in the same investigation, an because the floor was lit up by lightbulbs, wolframite was
attempt was made to determine whether or not LD stu- used for manufacturing lightbulbs.
dents could successfully generate their own internal In this experiment, mnemonic instruction was com-
mnemonic images. The materials in the direct instruction pared with three other conditions: free study, direct
condition were the same as those used in the first experi- instruction, and reduced-list direct instruction. The free-
ment. In the mnemonic imagery condition, however, stu- study condition was included to permit comparison of
dents were provided with the keyword and meaning of an unstructured study condition with both the mnemonic
each vocabulary word, but were asked to come up with and direct instruction conditions. Also, because some
their own interactive image. For example, for dahlia stu- would argue that the low level of performance associated
dents were told that the keyword for dahlia was doll and with direct instruction in the earlier studies resulted from
that dahlia meant flower, and so they should think of a too much content being dealt with in too little time, a
picture of a doll and flower doing something together. reduced-list direct instruction condition was implemented
Again, it was found that students in the mnemonic key- in which the experimenter presented only half as many
word condition statistically outperformed students in the minerals as were presented in the direct instruction, free-
direct instruction condition (averages of 69% and 47% study, and mnemonic conditions.
correct, respectively). Although the difference was smaller The findings replicated those of the previous research.
than that of the first experiment, the results nonetheless It was found that the LD students could successfully apply
indicated that LD students could generate their own inter- a pictorial mnemonic strategy to the learning of multiple
active images and that this strategy was superior to mineral attributes. In particular, performance in the
experimenter-led direct instruction. A notable aspect of mnemonic condition (an average of 69% correct)
these findings is that successful self-generation of a exceeded that exhibited in the two full-list comparison
mnemonic strategy represents a critical first step toward conditions (averages of 24% and 30% for direct instruc-
application of the strategy in other situations. Investiga- tion and free study, respectively). Moreover, mnemonic
tions focusing on students' maintenance and transfer of students mastered about 17 attributes (out of 24 possi-
mnemonic strategies are needed to determine the extent ble) in the same amount of instructional time that
to which, and the conditions under which, mnemonic reduced-list direct instruction students were able to mas-
strategies can be successfully implemented in exceptional ter only about 6 attributes (out of 12 possible). Note also
populations. that as in the previous investigations, students given full-
In another English vocabulary-learning study, Scruggs, list direct instruction did not outperform free-study con-
Mastropieri, and Levin (in press) provided EMR students trol students.
with both mnemonic illustrations and direct instruction In a second multiple-attribute study with LD students,
in a crossover design. The results supported those of the Mastropieri, Scruggs, McLoone, and Levin (1984) found
earlier investigations. When students were instructed that mnemonic instruction (with an average of 95% cor-
mnemonically, they recalled far more definitions (an aver- rect) was superior to both direct instruction (64%) and
age of 72% correct) than when they were taught via direct free study (77%) when the attributes to be learned
instruction (48%). represented dichotomous classificationsas is typical of
Two additional studies comparing direct and scientific taxonomies. For hardness levels, the minerals
mnemonic instruction in LD populations will now be were classified as either hard or soft; for color they were
reviewed. Both of these studies followed from the classified as either dark or pale; and for use, they were
hardness-of-minerals research that was described earlier. classified as either home or industry. In the mnemonic
42 Volume 6 Issue 2 March/April 1985
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
illustrations, hardness levels were represented by a pic- in press). Even in LD populations, students' spontane-
ture of either an old man (hard) or a baby (soft); color, ous utilization of mnemonic-like strategies has been
by either blackened in (dark) or not blackened in (pale) associated with higher levels of recall, in comparison to
keyword objects; and use, by either a home or an indus- strategies that rely solely on rote repetition (Mastropieri,
try setting. Again, not only did direct instruction not sur- 1983). It is possible that the direct instruction operation-
pass free study; it was statistically worse! alizations in the studies reviewed here prevented any kind
The rehearsal strategy employed in the above direct of effective strategy utilization, thereby depressing per-
instruction conditions has been the dominant strategy formance to some extent (relative to free study).
used in published SRA direct instruction materials for
teaching science facts and vocabulary such as, ''Indolent"
means lazy. What does indolent mean?" (Engelmann,
Haddox, Hanner, & Osborne, 1978, p. 45). Recently,
however, the use of a "visual-spatial display" has been V^oncerningthe value of mnemonic instruction, the size-
promoted as being optimally suited for the teaching of able advantage of this approach over both direct instruc-
fact systems in a variety of content domains (Engelmann tion and free study in all of the studies reviewed is indeed
& Carnine, 1982; Engelmann, Davis, & Davis, 1981). impressive. It is true that in the present context, direct
Although no prior published research could be found sup- instruction and mnemonic instruction have certain ele-
porting the effectiveness of such visual-spatial displays ments in common: (a) Both teach to a very specific objec-
with handicapped learners, this strategy was tested empir- tive, (b) both employ interaction with the experimenter,
ically against mnemonic instruction in two experiments and (c) both require careful structuring and sequencing
(Scruggs, Mastropieri, Levin, McLoone, Gaffney, & of lessons. However, several elements of the mnemonic
Prater, 1984). In the first experiment, the use of visual- method distinguish it from the essentially "operant" ele-
spatial direct instruction was compared with free-study ments of direct instruction. Associative mnemonic strate-
and mnemonic conditions in a lesson on attributes of gies capitalize on Levin's (1983) "three Ks"recoding,
minerals in which LD students had to learn specific infor- relating, retrieving. These elements require active stimu-
mation as in the previously discussed Scruggs et al. (1984) lus transformations and meaningful encodings on the part
study. In this experiment, the mnemonic students again of the learner, whereas direct instruction lends itself to
significantly outperformed students in both visual-spatial the production of rote verbal responses. One of the
and free-study conditions, with mean percentages correct important principles of direct instruction is that the infor-
of 58, 29, and 26, respectively. In the second experiment, mation is presented at a low cognitive level (Becker,
in which the dichotomous mineral classifications were Engelmann, Carnine, & Maggs, 1982). By contrast,
mnemonic instruction demands much more extensive
taught (e.g., hard-soft), mnemonically instructed students
information-processing of the learner (Levin, 1981a).
again outperformed students in both visual-spatial and
Finally, rapid experimenter pacing is not an inherent fea-
free-study conditions (mean percentages correct of 87,
ture of mnemonic instruction. Students are simply shown
65, and 60, respectively). Of special interest is that, con-
(or are told to generate) a mnemonic picture, told how
trary to recent speculations about the effectiveness of
to encode the information, and given a period of time
visual-spatial displays for factual learning, in neither
to perceive and reflect on the presented information. In
experiment did such displays facilitate students' attribute
contrast, direct instruction demands that the learners
recall relative to free study.
actively respond to teacher questions in a rapidly paced,
rote rehearsal format, e.g., ''Masticate means chew. What
does masticate mean?" (Engelmann et ah, 1978, p. 3).
During the research program reviewed here we became
increasingly convinced that the overt rehearsal compo-
Discussion
nent of direct instruction can lead the teacher to a false
These findings indicate that (a) mnemonic instruction sense of the degree of students' content mastery. In the
constitutes a powerful tool for increasing handicapped direct instruction approach, when a student gives an
learners' memory, and (b) direct instruction is not as erroneous response, he or she is immediately corrected
universally effective for handicapped learners as some and asked the same question again. Because the student
would like to believe (Karoly & Steffen, 1982). Concern- then invariably responds correctly to the same question,
ing the second point, our review of research on excep- the teacher may be led to believe that the student has
tional students' memory for novel factual information remembered the item when in fact it has merely been
suggests that direct instruction has not fared at all well, repeated. The Scruggs et al. (in press) EMR vocabulary-
even in relation to free-study conditions wherein learners learning study presents an example of the fragility of stu-
were provided an equivalent amount of time to study the dents' associative memory following direct instruction.
material however they wished. And, as has been noted In that study, a substantial proportion of subjects' errors
in the past, rapid-paced experimenter-enforced repetitive was "intralist intrusions," or incorrect responses consist-
instruction can inhibit students' selection or use of more ing of other definitions from the same list. Such intru-
effective study strategies (e.g., Rohwer, 1973; Scruggs, sions represented a much more prevalent source of errors
Remedial and Special Education Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
43
following direct instruction (73%) than following Margo A. Mastropieri, PhD, is assistant professor of
mnemonic instruction ( 2 5 % ) . The preponderance of special education and research/evaluation specialist,
intralist intrusion errors following direct instruction sug- Early Intervention Research Institute, Utah State
gests that strong associations between specific vocabu- University, Lngan. Her current research interests
lary items and specific definitions were not made. In con- include mnemonic strategy instruction, academic
trast, the relative scarcity of such errors following characteristics of behaviorally disordered students,
mnemonic instruction suggests that the established mne- and early intervention in special education. Thomas
monic connections were much more stable and retriev- E. Scruggs, PhD, is research/evaluation specialist,
able. Developmental Center for Handicapped Persons, Utah
The preceding data, discussion, and analysis provide State University, Logan. Dr. Scruggs' current research
a working hypothesis about the optimality of direct interests include mnemonic strategy instruction, peer
instruction as a pedagogical technique. Simply stated, tutoring, and test-taking skills. Joel R. Levin, PhD, is
direct instruction does not appear to be well suited to professor of educational psychology, University of
facilitating students' memory for associative content, in Wisconsin, Madison. Dr. levin's research interests
contrast, mnemonic techniques are especially well suited include learning, memory, children's prose
to that purpose. If direct instruction does prove to be comprehension, and statistics.
beneficial, it is likely to be with respect to facilitating stu-
dents' acquisition of specific skillsas would follow Authors' Note
directly from the success of operant techniques in the
behavior analysis literature. The distinction here is The authors would like to thank Dr. Hal McGrady and the
between "learning that" (memory for facts, or what cog- teachers and staff of the Mesa Puhlic Schools as well as the
nitive psychologists have come to call "declarative knowl- teachers and staff of the Scottsdale Public Schools, Arizona, for
edge") and "learning how" (skill acquisition, or "proce- their support of much of the research described here. We would
dural knowledge"). Recent literature reviews and data also like to thank Marilyn Tinnakul, Ursula Pimentel, and Jill
appear to support such a distinction (e.g., Gaffney, 1984; Barry for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.
The first author's contribution to the preparation of this man-
Graves, 1984). Of course, direct empirical assessments
uscript was supported in part by a postdoctoral fellowship
of the hypothesis are needed to document the presumed
awarded by the Exceptional Child Center and Utah State
strengths and weaknesses of direct instruction, on the one University. The third author's contribution was supported in
hand, and mnemonic instruction, on the other. The pres- part by the National Institute of Education through the Wis-
ent authors are currently engaged in such an effort. .**. consin Center for Education Research.
References
Anderson, J. R., 6c Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative Bower, G. H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer in
memory. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons. associative learning. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mncmotcchnics in second-language Behavior, 9, 529-533.
learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821-828. Bransford,J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble,
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the P. M., Mczynski, K. J., & Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differ-
disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research. ences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543. Experimental Psychology: General, W, 390-398.
Becker, W. C , Engelmann, S., Gamine, D. W., & Maggs, A. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic
(1982). Direct instruction technology: Making learning hap- learning from texts by means of informed, self-control train-
pen. In P. Karoly & J. J. Stcffcn (Eds.), Improving children's ing. Topics in Learning and learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.
competence: Advances in child behavioral analysis and ther- Denham, C , & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (1980). Time to learn.
a\ry (Vol. 1, pp. 151-204). Lexington, MA: Heath. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Bellez/.a, F. S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification, Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction:
characteristics, and criteria. Review of Educational Research, Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
51, 247-275. Engelmann, S., Davis, K., & Davis, G. (1981). Your world of
Berry, J. K. (1983). Unpuhlishcd doctoral research. University facts, level I Eugene, OR: E-B Press.
of Wisconsin, Madison. Engelmann, S.,Haddox, P., Hanner,S., & Osborne, J. (1978).
Bishop, M . S . , Lewis, P. G., & Sutherland, B. (1976). Focus Thinking basics: Corrective reading comprehension A.
on earth science. Columhus, OH: Merrill. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
44 Volume 6
Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016 Issue 2 March/April 1985
Fink,W. T . , & C a r n i n c , D . W. (1975). Control of arithmetic Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Levin, J. R., Gaffney, J.,
errors using informational feedback and graphing. Journal &C McLoone, B. (in press). Mnemonic vocabulary instruc-
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 461. tion for learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quar-
Gaffney, J. S. (1984). ED children's prose recall as a function terly.
of prior knowledge, instruction, and context relatedness. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., McLoone, B., &c Levin,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, J. R. (1984). Facilitating the acquisition of science classifi-
Tempe. cations in learning-disabled students. Unpublished manu-
Gerber, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Peer tutoring in aca- script, Utah State University, Logan.
demic settings. In P. Strain (Ed.), The utilization of classroom McCarty, D. L. (1980). Investigation of a visual imagery
peers as behavior change agents (pp. 155-187). New York: mnemonic device for acquiring face-name associations. Jour-
Plenum. nal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and Mem-
Graves, A. W. (1984). A study of the efficacy of direct instruc- ory, 6, 145-155.
tion and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York:
by learning disabled children. Unpublished doctoral disser- Holt.
tation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Prcssley, M., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Elaborativc learning
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.) (1982). strategics for the inefficient learner. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Hand-
Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. book of the cognitive, social, and physiological characteris-
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. tics of learning disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Higbee, K. L. (1979). Recent research on visual mnemonics: Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The
Historical roots and educational fruits. Review of Educational mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research,
Research, 49, 611-629. 52,61-91.
Jensen, A. R., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1963). The effect of ver- Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Hall, J. W., & Miller, G. E. (1979).
bal mediation on the learning and retention of paired- What makes the keyword method tick? An analysis of its com-
associates by retarded adults. American Journal of Mental ponents, with special attention to foreign word acquisition
Deficiency, 68, 80-84. (Working Paper No. 249). Madison: Wisconsin Research and
Karoly, P., & Steffen, J. J. (1982). Editor's epilogue. In P. Development Center for Individualized Schooling.
Karoly & J. J. Steffen (Eds.), Improving children's compe- Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1973). Elaboration and learning in child-
tence: Advances in child behavior analysts and therapy (Vol. 1, hood and adolescence. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in
pp. 205-206). Lexington, MA: Heath. child development and behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1-57). New
Levin, J. R. (1981a). The mnemonic '80s: Keywords in the York: Academic Press.
classroom. Educational Psychologist, 16, 65-82. Roscnshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction.
Levin, J. R. (1981b). On functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. In P. L. Peterson 6c H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teach-
Piroz/olo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and ing: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA:
cognitive processes in reading (pp. 203-228). New York: McCutchan.
Academic Press. Scruggs, T. E. (in press). Verbal learning strategies in academ-
Levin, J. R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Prac- ically precocious youth. In Working papers and their critiques.
tical illustrations. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cog- Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
nitive strategy research: Educational applications Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Levin, J. R. (in press).
(pp. 213-237). New York: Springer-Verlag. Vocabulary acquisition of retarded students under direct and
Levin, J. R. (in press). Educational applications of mnemonic mnemonic instruction. American Journal of Mental Defi-
pictures: Possibilities beyond your wildest imagination. In ciency.
A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery and the educational process. Far- Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Levin, J. R., & Gaffney,
mingdale, NY: Baywood. J. (in press). Facilitating the acquisition of science facts in
Levin, J. R., McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., Berry, J. K., learning disabled students. American Education Research
& Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic Journal.
vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educa- Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Levin, J. R., McLoone,
tional Research Journal, 19, 121-136. B., Gaffney, J. S., & Prater, M. (1984). Increasing content-
Martin, C. J. (1978). Mediational processes in the retarded: area learning: A comparison of mnemonic and visual-spatial
Implications for teaching reading. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Inter- direct instruction. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State
national review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 9, University, Logan.
pp. 61-84). New York: Academic Press. Taylor, A. M., & Turnure, J. E. (1979). Imagery and verbal
Mastropieri, M. A. (1983). Mnemonic strategies with learn- elaboration with retarded children: Effects on learning and
ing disabled students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ari- memory. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency,
zona State University, Tempe. psychological theory and research {pp. 659-698). Hillsdale,
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (in press-a). NJ: Erlbaum.
Direct instruction vs. mnemonic instruction: Relative benefits Underwood, B. J., 6c Schulz, R. W. (1960). Meaningfulness
for exceptional learners. Journal of Special Education. and verbal learning. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., 6c Levin, J. R. (in press-b). White, O., & Haring, N. (1981). Exceptional teaching.
Memory strategy instruction with learning disabled students. Columbus, OFI: Merrill.
Journal of learning Disabilities. Worden, P. E. (1983). Memory strategy instruction with the
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., 6c Levin, J. R. (in press-c). learning disabled. In M. Pressley 8c J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cog-
Pictorial mnemonic strategies for special education. Journal nitive strategy research: Psychological foundations
of Special Education Technology. (pp. 129-153). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Remedial and Special Education Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 20, 2016
45