My source to review is K through O: “Mnemonic Instruction in Science and Social Studies for Students with Learning Problems: A Review”Prior to beginning this discussion, please read and view th

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 C opyright @ by LDW 2016 *Please send correspondence to: Edward A. Polloway, Lynchburg College, 1501 Lakeside Dr., Lynchburg, VA 24501, Email: [email protected]. Mnemonic Instruction in Science and Social Studies for Students with Learning Problems: A Review Jacqueline Lubin Fort Hays State University Edward A. Polloway Lynchburg College Over the years, mnemonic instruction has been promoted as an effective strategy to teach students with learning problems including learning dis- abilities (LD) or mild intellectual disability (MID). This paper discusses mnemonic instruction, including types, versatility in use, and effective - ness with struggling learners. Specific emphasis then is placed on research on mnemonic strategies in the content areas of science and social studies.

The paper concludes with a discussion of how mnemonic strategies can be effectively used with students with learning problems to enhance per - formance.

Keywords: Mnemonic instruction; learning problems; learning disabilities; mild intellectual disability; science instruction; social studies. IntroductIon Mnemonic instruction has been proven to be a research-based method for teaching students with different kinds of disabilities (e.g., Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2011; Conderman, & Pedersen, 2005; Lloyd, Forness, & Kavale, 1998; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Marshak, 2010; Veit, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1986).

It has been used in special and general education for decades as a way to convert diffi - cult-to-remember concepts into more memorable ones. Mnemonic instruction uses memory devices that may help students learn a significant amount of information as well as increase long-term retention (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1991). Mnemonics may assist with both storage and retrieval of information (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998).

Its use has been promoted as a way to assist especially those students who do not meet the minimum requirements with regard to their academic progress. Such learners of - ten fail to develop the knowledge, skills, will, and self-regulation necessary to succeed in key subject areas. They could exhibit difficulties in specific areas (e.g., reading, mathematics) and would thus may be referred to as having a learning disability (LD).

Or they may be identified as having a mild intellectual disability (MID) (Grünke & Morrison Cavendish, 2016). In any case, mnemonic instruction can be very effective to use for students who have problems in remembering information given that there are many subject area concepts to be learned, students are often unfamiliar with the content, and the information is often complex (Levin, 1993). Mnemonic instruction has been empirically validated as a technique that can enhance students’ learning since 1973 (Berkeley & Scruggs, 2010; Levin, 1993). By 1983, Mastropieri had shown that mnemonic instruction can be used with students 208 with LD. As Scruggs and Mastropieri (2000) noted, mnemonic strategies are effective in teaching students with LD as they help them make use of their cognitive strengths.

Mnemonic instruction has been documented to be versatile as it can be effectively used not only across abilities but across subject areas, including foreign language, English, science, history, math and social studies (e.g., Brigham et al., 2011; Letendre, 1993; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2009; Zisimopoulos, 2010). The purpose of this paper is first to discuss mnemonic instruction in gen - eral, noting various mnemonic strategies that may be used and the versatility and ef - fectiveness of mnemonic instruction with students with learning problems. Then, re - search investigating mnemonic strategies that have been implemented in the subject areas of science and social studies, respectively, are highlighted . The paper concludes with a discussion of how mnemonic strategies may be effectively used with students with learning problems to enhance performance. While a substantial amount of re - search on mnemonic instruction occurred in prior decades, it remains an important tool that continues to be regarded as an empirically-validated practice. MneMonIc InstructIon Mnemonic instruction includes a variety of strategies that are applicable across multiple settings and may be used effectively with students with varying abili- ties. The Division for Learning Disabilities and the Division for Research within the Council for Exceptional Children highly recommended mnuemonic instruction as an empirically validated practice that may be used with students with LD (i.e., Berke- ley & Scruggs, 2010; Brigham & Brigham, 2001; TeachingLD, 2015). This section highlights general information about the utility of mnemonics. There are many types of mnemonic strategies that teachers may employ.

According to Thompson (1987 as cited by Amirousefi & Ketabi, 2011), there are five classes of mnemonics: linguistic, spatial, visual, physical response and verbal meth - ods. Linguistic mnemonics, such as the pegword and keyword methods, involve as - sociating the new concept with familiar words and/or phrases to help remember the item. Spatial mnemonics, which include the loci, spatial grouping and finger meth- ods, involve connecting the new concept to a familiar place, pattern or finger to help in memorization of the material. Visual mnemonics make use of pictures or visual - izations to create an association to the target concept (e.g., symbolics, pictograph - ics). The verbal method uses meaning and stories to help students remember, with methods such as grouping or semantic organization and story-telling or narrative chains. Physical response methods make use of the body parts to aid in remembrance, either through movement or physical sensation. These five types of mnemonics are illustrated in Figure 1. Specific examples of mnemonics are highlighted in Figures 2-4. In educa - tional research and in practice, the most commonly used mnemonic devices include acronyms (Figure 2), acrostics (Figure 3), keywords (Figure 4), pegwords (for learning items in numerical or chronological sequence), symbolics, and pictographics (Figure 2, ii) . Students tend to be most familiar with acronyms and acrostics as well as find them to be the most helpful and useful techniques (Bloom & Lamkin, 2006; McCabe, Osha, & Roche, 2013), while keywords are frequently cited in educational research.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 209 Figure 1. Types of Mnemonics Mnemonic instruction may be used by both general education and special education teachers. Given the degree of inclusion of students with learning prob- lems, clearly much of the instruction for the students will occur in general education classrooms. The use of mnemonic instruction in special education has been researched in particular with students with LD and for more than three decades a substantial literature base has been established on the effectiveness of mnemonic instruction with these students (e.g., Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1994; Lloyd et al., 1998, Mastropieri, 1983; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1989, 2000; Scruggs et al., 2009; Mastrop- ieri, Scruggs, & Levin, 1985; Veit et al., 1986). The extant research collectively points to the value of mnemonic instruction in teaching and learning concepts that need to be retrieved quickly and automatically. Further, mnemonic strategies may be used broadly across subject areas in lessons where new vocabulary, technical terms, the names of people places or things, number patterns and formulae need to be learned. In general, mnemonic instruction has utility for any academic task that requires factual recall of information and has been found to be effective in enhancing performance across subject areas (Therrein, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, & Gorsh, 2011).

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 210 Figure 2. Acronyms and Pictograhic for Science Concepts i. MR GREEN = The 7 characteristics of all living animals: Movement, Reproduction, Growth, Respiration, Excretion, Environmental Sensi- tivity, Nutrition ii. CAM SEA, (pronounced “calm sea”) which represents the six classes of invertebrate animals: Cnidarians, Annelids, Mollusks, Sponges, Echino - derms, Arthropods Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 211 Figure 3. Acrostics for Science and Social Studies Concepts i. King Harry’s deeds brought deep cheer to millions. Explanation: These stand for the metric prefixes and base unit. Kilo-, Hecto-, Deca-, base, Deci-, Centi-, Milli- ii. Fir st 16 American Presidents: Washington Adams Just Made Many Admirers, George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams ==== J uggling Various Heavy Trumpets.

Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren William Henry Harrison John Tyler ==== Please T ry Following Pretty Boy’s Le g a c y.

James Polk Zachary Taylor Millard Fillmore Franklin Pierce James Buchannan Abraham Lincoln Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 212 Figure 4. Keywords for Social Studies Concepts States and capital. For example: i. K eyword for Virginia is Virgin (Oil).

K eyword for Richmond is Rich-Man.

ii. K eyword for Connecticut is Connect.

K eyword for Hartford is Heart.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 213 In reading, mnemonic strategies may be used to enhance retention, which has the ripple effect of enhancing comprehension skills; as students remember more information, they are more likely to succeed in applying it to the comprehension task (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998). The use of mnemonic instruction also has sig - nificantly improved the retention of vocabulary learning (e.g., Amirousefi & Ketabi, 2011; Berkeley & Scruggs, 2010; Scruggs et al., 2009). In mathematics, mnemonic strategies may be used to promote the perfor - mance of students with LD as there are many concepts that students need to know automatically in order to carry out more complex tasks (Miller & Strawser, 1996).

Greene (1999) found that mnemonic instruction increased the retention of math facts over traditional instruction by 28% with students with LD. Given difficulties with computation, for example, increasing the ability to memorize information can enhance math performance (Miller, Stringfellow, Kaffar, Ferreira, & Mane, 2011). The principal goal of mnemonic instruction is to help students remember facts and concepts and this goal is imperative to school success as there is content in every area that needs to be memorized and quickly retrieved. The proven effective - ness of mnemonic instruction makes it a valuable tool in the classroom (Lloyd et al., 1998). The focus below is on research that has been conducted on the use of mne - monic instruction in the subjects of science and social studies, respectively. MneMonIc InstructIon In scIence Students with learning problems often find it difficult to remember science concepts (Therrien et al., 2011) and they may perform significantly lower in science exams than their typically developing peers (Mastropieri, Emerick & Scruggs, 1988).

The main instructional strategies used in traditional general education classrooms typically include textbooks and/or lectures. Students with learning problems typi - cally struggle to grasp concepts when these are the sole techniques used in classrooms (Therrien, Taylor, Watt, & Kaldenberg, 2014). A valuable instrument which is highly effective in improving students with learning problems ability to retain and recall science facts is mnemonic instruction (Brigham et al., 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Levin, & Gaffney, 1985; Therrien et al., 2011). Table 1 outlines five studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of mnemonic instruction in helping students acquire science concepts and facts. These are then discussed below. Mastropieri et al. (1985) conducted two experiments comparing three in- structional strategies (i.e., mnemonic instruction {pegword, keyword}, questioning and free study) used with students with and without LD. Their aim was to find out which instructional method helped respective students recall the greatest number of scientific facts (i.e., hardness level of metals) and to find out whether they would perform at comparable rates as students without LD using the same instructional strategies. The first experiment included ninety ninth graders with LD. They were placed in two achievement groups, with lower and higher reading comprehension groups each containing 45 students, respectively. Then, each group was broken into three subgroups where 15 students were randomly assigned to mnemonic instruction group, questioning procedure group and free study group, each. In the end, there were six groups of 15 students with LD. Students in the mnemonic strategy groups recalled the hardness level of metals at a higher level than those in the other instruc - tional groups (i.e., questioning, free study). This result was statistically significant.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 214 Table 1. Mnemonic Instruction in Science ArticleParticipants Age/ Grade Level Disability Mnemonic Strategy Results King-Sears, Mercer, & Sindelar, 1992 37 students - 34 males - 3 females12-14 yrs Grade= 6-8 learning disabilities (30) emotional/ behavioral disorders (7) Keyword (Science vocabulary- animal and plant life, earth science, body terms, weather, astronomy) Significant keyword effect during the fourth week of instruction Mastropieri, Emerick, & Scruggs, 1988 8 students - 7 boys - 1 girl7-11 yrs Grade= 1-4 emotionally disturbed Keyword and interactive illustrations (Vocabulary words on food chain and animals) Students scored average of 94.5% correct with mnemonic condition as opposed to 58.8% with traditional instruction Mastropieri, Scruggs, Whittaker, & Bakken, 1994 9students - 5 boys - 4 girls15-18 yrs mildly mentally handicapped Keywords (name parts of the ear and eye) On the eye test- 77% accurate recall compared to teacher report where students had difficulty remembering information On ear test- 62% recall Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Levin, 1985 90 students - 68 boys - 22 girls & 45 students without disabilities - 25 boys - 20 girls14 -16 yrs Grade= 9 12-13yrs Grade= 7 learning disabilities Pegword Keyword (17 minerals- hardness level) 77% of mnemonic students reported that strategies were effective in aiding in recall as opposed to 2% and 1% of questioning and free-study group Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 215 ArticleParticipants Age/ Grade Level Disability Mnemonic Strategy Results Scruggs,Mastropieri, McLoone, Levin, & Morrison, 1987 48 students - 41 boys - 7 girlsAverage age= 16 Grade= 10-11learning disabilities Keywords Pegwords (North American Minerals) Experiment One:

After receiving mnemonic instruction, students scored average of 93% as opposed to 55% by control group.

Experiment Two:

Students instructed with mnemonic instruction were able to correctly classify minerals 72% of time while non- mnemonic students classified accurately 42% of time Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 216 In addition, Mastropieri et al. (1985) reported participants’ response latency (i.e., the time taken between the time the question is asked and the time the respon - dent begins an appropriate answer). Data on the latency of responses showed that the mnemonic group took longer to respond than the other groups, suggesting that utilizing mnemonic techniques may be require e time as students have to recall a code (i.e. mnemonic meaning), retrieve information (i.e. concepts learned) and connect mnemonic and concepts . Despite the delay, students in mnemonic groups generated more correct responses than students in the other groups. Lastly, 77% of the mne - monic groups reported that the mnemonic strategies were effective in helping them recall science facts (vs. three percent for the two other instructional groups). The second part of Mastropieri et al.’s (1985) experiment included 45 sev - enth grade students without LD. They were randomly placed in three instructional groups (i.e., mnemonic, questioning, free-study) and taught the same scientific facts (e.g., minerals) as the students with LD. The results showed that the students in the mnemonic group recalled more concepts than students in the other two instructional groups. Moreover, similar to the students with LD, the mnemonic group took longer time to recall information than those using the questioning or study group tech - niques. The authors concluded that special and general education teachers may ef - fectively incorporate mnemonic instruction in science classes with students with and without LD to help them learn and recall concepts. Other research has supported and extended these findings. In a study con- ducted by Scruggs, Mastropieri, McLoone, Levin, and Morrison (1987), 48 high school students with LD were taught attributes of North American minerals using mnemonic and non-mnemonic illustrations (i.e. a picture using images different to the mnemonic illustration but depicting similar features of minerals) with dichoto - mized attributes in three areas- color, softness, and use. The study consisted of two experiments where the goal was to determine whether mnemonic instruction could be used with independent reading expository prose passages to help students with LD learn science concepts. The researchers sought to extend previous research that showed that mnemonic instruction was effective in helping the students learn a list of science facts. In the first experiment, 24 students with LD were randomly placed in two groups: one group was instructed using mnemonic illustrations (and keywords) with dichotomized attributes of minerals and a short passage on minerals, while the other group was instructed using non-mnemonic illustrations, a short passage on minerals and their own method of study. The mnemonic treatment group scored sig- nificantly higher in identifying attributes of minerals than the non-mnemonic group.

In addition, the students in the mnemonic group rated their technique more helpful than the other group rated the alternative methodology. Scruggs et al.’s (1987) second experiment consisted of 24 students with LD, who were divided into two equal groups. One group received mnemonic instruction (pegwords, keywords) with mineral passages, while the other group was instruct - ed using non-mnemonic illustrations and mineral passages. Students who received mnemonic instruction with the prose passages remembered more concepts, retained more information over a longer period of time and were able to make more appro - priate inferences (that is, transfer known information) on the attributes of miner - als. In addition, Scruggs et al. (1987) reported that students in the mnemonic group Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 217 had a greater probability of classifying attributes correctly when they were unable to remember specific attributes. 82% of the students stated that they would use the mnemonic strategy again to learn concepts, while only 54% of control group students reported the likelihood of using their strategy again. These results further highlighted the effectiveness of mnemonic strategies in improving students with LD knowledge of scientific facts.In another investigative study in science, Mastropieri et al. (1988) sought to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher-developed and teacher-presented mnemonic techniques on students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). They chose difficult to remember science concepts that previous research had shown to be chal - lenging. The study included eight students who were placed in two equal groups. Stu - dents were instructed in two areas (food chains and invertebrates), using two meth - ods (mnemonic: keyword and illustrations, and traditional method). Each group received both types of instruction but at alternate times. While group one received mnemonic instruction on food chains, the other received traditional instruction on invertebrates. Then, the next week, the groups switched instruction and topic. Stu - dents were evaluated at the end of instruction on each topic. Students not only ob - tained higher scores after being taught using the mnemonic strategy, but also retained concepts for a longer period of time on topics. Mastropieri et al. (1988) also reported that students felt that they had attained more science facts and preferred learning through the use of mnemonics; teachers also found that students were more moti - vated when mnemonic instruction was used. King-Sears, Mercer and Sindelar (1992) sought to determine whether stu - dents with LD could use the keyword mnemonic strategy method independently. The study consisted of 37 students with LD and emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD), who were divided into three groups with sizes ranging from 10-18. Each group was taught science concepts (from topics such as animal and plant life, earth science, body parts, weather and astronomy) using one of three interventions: systematic teach - ing; systematic teaching with an imposed (teacher-provided) keyword mnemonic; and systematic teaching with an induced (student-provided) keyword mnemonic.

The participants remembered more new vocabulary definitions when taught with an imposed keyword mnemonic. Students in the imposed mnemonic group stated that they enjoyed learning using the mnemonic strategy but it would have been less fun if they had to create their own mnemonic. Those in the induced keyword group con - firmed the latter, expressing that it was challenging to create keywords with associated illustrations. King-Sears et al. (1992) recommended that a more extensive model may be needed to know whether students with LD and EBD may use keywords more inde - pendently. However, the results supported previous research that mnemonic instruc - tion is effective with students with disabilities in improving retention of meanings of new concepts. Mastropieri, Scruggs, Whittaker, and Bakken (1994) embarked on a class - room application project to determine the impact of mnemonic instruction on stu - dents with MID. One part of the project used science concepts while the other part included social studies concepts (which will be discussed in the next section). Nine high school students were taught the parts of the eye and ear, and definitions using Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 218 the keyword mnemonic strategy. After 14 instructional sessions, the results revealed that there was a significant increase in recall of science facts. The students and the teacher stated that they liked using mnemonic techniques.In conclusion, research has consistently demonstrated that mnemonic in- struction is effective in increasing recall and retention of science facts with students with learning problems. Science teachers may use these techniques to help students retain difficult-to-remember concepts. Across studies, students reported enjoying the use of mnemonic strategies and, in many cases, stated that they would use the technique again. Generating students’ interest in mnemonics may help students use mnemonic strategies and thus retain scientific facts. MneMonIc InstructIon In socIal studIes Acquiring and retaining social studies concepts tend to be a challenge for students with learning problems. As Letendre (1993) noted, “students often feel over - whelmed with social studies content because of the need to recall facts, dates, and fig - ures” (p. 26). Many students with LD and MID lack the skills needed to extract infor - mation from expository text (Hall, Kent, McCulley, Davis, & Wanzek, 2013) and lack a retrieval strategy (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989). Mnemonic instruction has proven not only to promote the acquisition of social studies content but make abstract infor - mation more concrete (Hall et al., 2013). Mastropieri and Scruggs (1989) noted that mnemonic instruction goes beyond teaching the concepts; it provides students with specific strategies to retrieve concepts at a later date. Therefore, mnemonic instruc - tion is an appropriate tool to use in the social studies classrooms as it gives students with learning problems the opportunity to acquire content knowledge, make causal connections and learn a retrieval strategy that can be used beyond the classroom (see Table 2 for a summary of research studies).

Mastropieri and Scruggs (1989) investigated whether mnemonic instruc - tion could be adapted in the social studies classroom as it had proven to be effective in laboratory-like settings. Their study included 14 students with LD and three with MID who were taught the history of transportation and natural resources in the state of Indiana. Students were placed in three groups and all groups were taught con - tent using traditional, text-book based instruction and mnemonic instruction. Three special education teachers were trained to mastery in teaching both the mnemonic and traditional procedures. While one group from each teacher received mnemonic instruction on the first topic, the two other groups received traditional instruction on the second topic, and then instruction was reversed. All three teachers taught both topics using mnemonic instruction and traditional, text-book based instruction. Stu - dents in each classroom scored significantly higher under mnemonic treatment than the traditional treatment. Both students and teachers reported that they enjoyed us - ing mnemonic strategies. The students noted that they were more motivated to learn, that mnemonic strategies helped them learn more facts, and that they would like to use them in other subject areas.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 219 Table 2. Mnemonic Instruction in Social Studies ArticleParticipantsAge/ Grade LevelDisability Mnemonic Strategy Results Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989 17 students - 11 boys - 6 girlsAverage age= 11 Grade 3-7learning disabilities (14) mildly mentally handicapped (3) Visual Mnemonics using pictures ( History of Transportation in Indiana and Indiana Natural Resources) Students scored on average 89.9% correct under mnemonic instruction and average of 74.9% correct under traditional method Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Brigham, 1992 29 students - 20 males - 9 femalesAverage age= 14 Grade= 7-8learning disabilities Keyword & Visual representation (for 40 states and their capitals) Students remembered 72.9% of mnemonically instructed capital names as compared to 43.4% of traditionally instructed capital names Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Whedon, 1997 11 students - 6 males - 5 femalesAverage Age= 14 Junior Highlearning disabilities Keyword-Pegword representations of presidents and their numbers (total= 32) In mnemonic condition, students got 70.4% correct for name recall & 60.3% for number recall as compared to 23.9% correct for name recall & 31.3% correct for number recall when taught traditionally Mastropieri, Scruggs, Whittaker, & Bakken, 1994 8 students - 3 boys - 5 girlsAverage age= 13 Junior Highmildly mentally handicapped Keywords (state & capital names) 94% correct (all but 2 got perfect scores) compared to inability to recall almost any information before mnemonic intervention Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 220 In another study conducted by Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, and Brigham (1992), 29 students with LD were taught states and their capitals using mnemonic and traditional instruction. The mnemonic instruction included illustrations and keywords for state and capitals, while the traditional intervention included trans - parencies with a state outline, a star to represent the capital, and the names of state and capital. The goal of the study was to find out whether students could recall infor - mation gained through mnemonic instruction. Students were placed in two groups and received both traditional and mnemonic intervention on alternate weeks from graduate students. The results revealed that students produced higher grades after mnemonic instruction was employed and significantly lower grades after traditional instruction. There was a statistically significant difference in recall of information from students after receiving mnemonic instruction. The difference was equivalent to a student moving from an “F” to a “C” grade (Mastropieri et al., 1992). Students and teachers stated that they enjoyed and preferred mnemonic instruction to tradi - tional instruction. Students reported that they not only learned more but were more attentive when mnemonic instruction was used. They emphasized that they would like to receive additional intervention. This study also found that students who were instructed with mnemonics could effectively recall information whether the concept was requested in a forward or backward format (i.e whether students were asked to identify state or capital first). Mastropieri et al. (1994) extended the prior study by Mastropieri et al.

(1992) by investigating the effectiveness of the keyword mnemonic strategy in help- ing students with MID learn states and capitals in the United States. Eight students were given a pretest on 20 states and capitals and their scores revealed that they were unable to answer most questions correctly. During intervention, they were instructed on the 20 states and capitals for four weeks during social studies class using the key - word mnemonic strategy with illustrations. The results showed that on average stu - dents were able to recall information correctly 94% of the time, while two students were able to recall concepts with 100% accuracy. All students stated that they enjoyed learning through mnemonic instruction. This study corroborated previous research that showed that mnemonic instruction can help students with a wide range of dis - abilities learn social studies concepts. Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Whedon (1997) investigated the effectiveness of a keyword-pegword mnemonic strategy in teaching students with LD social stud - ies content. The keyword-pegword mnemonic strategy involved the combination of these two mnemonic devices to teach word concepts and associated numbers. The study consisted of eleven teenagers with LD who were taught the order of 32 U.S.

presidents using both traditional and mnemonic instruction over the course of 8 weeks. Sixteen presidents were taught using the traditional method while the other 16 were taught using keyword-pegword mnemonic strategy. The traditional instruction included the teacher presenting the president’s name and number with an illustration and practicing it with students while the mnemonic instruction followed the same procedure except the illustration was replaced with keyword-pegword representa - tion of presidents and their numbers. After receiving mnemonic instruction, students scored substantially higher on weekly tests than with traditional instruction and were able to retain information for longer period of time. Students showed greater ability Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 221 to recall the name of a president rather than just the ranking. This study further con- firmed that mnemonic instruction has the capacity to help students with LD acquire, retain, and recall social studies content. In summary, the literature documents the efficacy of mnemonic instruction in helping students with learning problems like LD or MID, learn and remember so- cial studies facts and concepts. Given that text comprehension in social studies can be a challenge, mnemonic instruction may make abstract concepts more concrete (Hall et al., 2013). This tangible instructional format may help students remember social studies concepts more easily. With mnemonic instruction, studies have shown that students not only learn content but they are more motivated to learn. They enjoyed instruction and as a result paid more attention in class than when traditional method of instruction is used. Mnemonic instruction may help students with learning problems remem - ber concepts as they tend to be less motivated than their typically developing peers (Smith, Polloway, Doughty, Patton, & Dowdy, 2015). Social studies content may be overwhelming (Letendre, 1993) and so students may need motivation to stay focus to the task. Mnemonic instruction is a validated tool which literature has shown in - creases students desire to learn social studies concepts. dIscussIon The extant research has demonstrated that mnemonic instruction is an ef - fective technique that may be used across subject areas as well as across abilities. Stu- dents with varying learning problems acquired and retained concepts when taught using mnemonic instruction. In fact, many students enjoyed learning in that manner.

Teachers may provide struggling learners more opportunities to grasp concepts by using mnemonic instruction to learn, retain and recall concepts taught in subject areas. Consistent with IDEA (2004), students with LD or MID may be given access to the general curriculum and, because access may lead to success, mnemonic instruc - tion may help achieve that goal. Subject teachers, particularly in the sciences and so- cial studies, may use mnemonic strategies to promote gains in academic achievement for students with learning problems. Recall of facts is a fundamental skill required for success in content subject areas, such as science and social studies. Students with LD or MID frequently have memory deficits (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998). The findings in these studies pro - vide insight that they may process information (e.g. words, numbers) differently than their typically developing peers (Mastropieri et al., 1997). Mnemonic instruction can create a bridge between academic content and information processing. Therefore, classroom teachers may utilize mnemonic devices, such as those highlighted in the figures, to help students grasp science and social studies concepts. The effective use of mnemonic instruction involves intensive planning.

Teachers who use mnemonic instruction will need to ensure that they model the use of the technique and explicitly teach application strategies. Effective implementation of mnemonic instruction will require planning. Miller and Strawser (1996) further noted that the academic success that students with LD or MID gain from mnemonic instruction is worth the time spent developing it, as students are able to work more independently and spend less time learning critical skills. There may be intrinsic Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 222 gains from using mnemonic instruction. Students enjoyed using mnemonic strategy and so felt motivated to learn. This added incentive may make mnemonic devices beneficial tools in the classroom. It is important to note that “that mnemonic strategies are not an overall teaching method or curricular approach” (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998, para. 2).

Mnemonic instruction can only be effective if educators use it for its intended pur - pose (i.e., to help students remember). It involves techniques that students can use to encode and retrieve information quickly, which otherwise would not have been easily remembered. When used for its intended purpose, mnemonic instruction may be effectively utilized in science and social studies lessons to help improve academic performance. Research over almost three decades has demonstrated that mnemonic in - struction is effective with students with learning problems. It has helped students retain, maintain and generalize concepts which they would have otherwise forgotten.

They have improved the academic achievement of typically developing students and students with LD, MID, and EBD. They have helped students acquire science and social studies concepts. Mnemonic strategies have increased students with learning problems ability to remember academic content, and retrieve it at a later date. They have equipped students with a strategy that can be used in other subject areas. The multiple benefits of mnemonic instruction make it an important tool for instruction. references American Psychological Association (2016). Individuals with disability education . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/disability/idea.aspx Amiryousefi, M., & Ketabi, S. (2011). Mnemonic instruction: A way to boost vocabulary learn - ing and recall. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 178-182.

Berkeley, S., & Scruggs, T. E. (2010). Vocabulary instruction. Current Practice Alerts, 18(1), 1-4.

Bloom, C. M., & Lamkin, D. M. (2006). The Olympian struggle to remember the cranial nerves: Mnemonics and student success. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 128-129.

Brigham, R., & Brigham, M. (2001). Mnemonic instruction. Current Practice Alerts, 5(1), 1-4.

Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (4), 223-232.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D.D. (1994). The effects of a recall enhancement routine on the test performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(1), 2-11.

Conderman, G., & Pedersen, T. (2005). Promoting positive special education practices. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (644), 90-98.

Greene, G. (1999). Mnemonic multiplication fact instruction for students with learning dis - abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 141-148.

Grünke, M., & Morrison Cavendish, W. (2016). Learning disabilities around the globe: Making sense of the heterogeneity of the different viewpoints. Learning Disabilities: A Con- temporary Journal, 14(1), 1-8.

Hall, C., Kent, S. C., McCulley, L., Davis, A., & Wanzek, J. (2013). A new look at mnemonic and graphic organizes in the secondary social studies classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(1), 47-55.

King-Sears, M. E., Mercer, C. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonics: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13(5), 22-33.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 223 Letendre, W. (1993). Mnemonic instruction with regular and special education students in social studies. Southern Social Studies Journal, 18(2), 25-37.

Levin, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom learning: A twenty-year report card. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 235- 244.

Lloyd, J. W., Forness, S. R., & Kavale K. A. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 195-200.

Mastropieri, M. A. (1983). Mnemonic strategies with learning disabled students . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Mastropieri, M. A., Emerick, K., & Scruggs, T. E. ( 1988). Mnemonic instruction in science concepts. Behavioral Disorders, 14(1), 48-56.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10(3), 40- 45.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonics. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). Enhancing school success with mnemonic strategies .

Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/5912 Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1992). A complex mnemonic strategy for teaching states and their capitals: Comparing forward and backward as - sociations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7(2), 96-103.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(2), 94-100.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E, & Whedon, C. (1997). Using Mnemonic strategies to teach information about U.S. presidents: A classroom-based investigation. Learning Dis- ability Quarterly, 20(1), 13- 21.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E, Whittaker, M. E. S., & Bakken, J. P. (1994). Applications of mnemonic strategies with students with mild mental disabilities. Remedial and Spe- cial Education, 15(1), 34-43.

McCabe, J. A., Osha, K. L., & Roche, J. A. (2013). Psychology students’ knowledge and use of mnemonics. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 183-192.

Miller, S. P., & Strawser, S. (1996). Promoting strategic math performance among students with learning disabilities. LD Forum, 21(2), 34-40.

Miller, S. P., Stringfellow, J. L., Kaffar, B. J., Ferreirs, D., & Mancl, D. B. (2011). Developing computation competence among students who struggle with mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 38-46.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A (1989). Mnemonic instruction of LD students: A field based investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(2), 119-125.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis.

Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(2/3), 163-173.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A, Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E. (2009). Do special education in - terventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 437-449.

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M. A, Berkeley, S., & Marshak,L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evi - dence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(2), 79-86.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A, Levin, J. R., & Gaffney, J. S. (1985). Facilitating the acquisition of science facts in learning disabled students. American Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 575-586.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A, Mcloone, B. B., Levin, J. R., & Morrison, C. R. (1987). Mne - monic facilitation of learning disabled students’ memory for expository prose. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 27-34.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 224 Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Doughty, J., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2015). Teaching stu- dents with special needs in inclusive settings (7 th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

TeachingLD. (2015). Current Practice Alerts. Retrieved from http://teachingld.org/ alerts#strategy-instruction-that-primes-the-problem-structure Therrein, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., & Kaldenberg, E. R. (2011). Science instruction for stu- dents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(4), 188- 203.

Therrein, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S., & Kaldenberg, E. R. (2014). Science instruction for stu - dents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 15-27.

Veit, D. T., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986). Extended mnemonic instruction with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 300-308.

Zisimopoulos, D. A. (2010). Enhancing multiplication performance in students with moder - ate intellectual disabilities using pegword mnemonics paired with a picture fading technique. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(2), 117-133.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 14(2), 207–224, 2016 Copyright ofLearning Disabilities -- A Contemporary Journalisthe property ofLearning Disabilities Worldwideanditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesor posted toalistserv without thecopyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,users may print, download, oremail articles forindividual use.