Comparison of Grammar
Learning with and
without Visual
Mnemonic Pictures for
Children with Language
Learning Disability (LLD)
Brandi L. Newkirk, Jan Norris & Paul Hoffman
Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT
Children in upper elementary and secondary school
must learn formal grammar, including parts of
speech. Many children with LLD find this to be a
daunting task. This study compared two methods of
instruction (learning grammatical forms with and
without the use of visual mnemonic grammar
pictures) using an alternating treatment single
subject design across eight weeks. Results indicated
that the visual mnemonic instructional approach
facilitated greater gains in learning parts of speech.
INTRODUCTION
In upper elementary school and middle school,
English Language Arts skills such as parts of speech
are usually taught separately from the process of
reading through the use of worksheets that isolate
the skill and teach in a “define and practice” format
(Dinkins, 2006). Definitions are learned for metaterms such as “noun” or “predicate,” and then the
definition must be applied to find exemplars in
sentences. This is an auditory-to-auditory
processing task, creating considerable challenges for
children with language processing problems.
Visual Mnemonic Grammar Cards
• Dinkins (2006) used visual mnemonic grammar
cards to teach parts of speech with middleschool children.
• The meaning of the part of speech is pictured
within the letters of the word
• Thus, the important elements of the definition
of the grammatical term are pictured, reducing
the demands on auditory memory to remember
the definition while also analyzing a sentence
for words that fit the definition.
Dinkins found significantly better performance for low SES students taught
using the visual grammar pictures in the regular classroom.
Purpose
• The goal of this study was to compare two
methods of instruction (with and without
visual mnemonic pictures) for teaching
language arts skills to upper elementary and
middle school children with Language
Learning Disabilities (LLD).
Research question:
• Will visual mnemonic pictures yield greater
gains in learning language arts skills compared
to skills taught without picture support?
Methods
This study used an alternating treatment single
subject design to explore the use of visualized
grammar cards within short embedded language
lessons for children with LLD.
• 11 children
• 8 to 13 years of age
• 8 weeks of intervention
• taught 14 parts of speech
Each child was receiving language services in an
after-school program housed within a university
speech and language clinic.
• 2 parts of speech taught weekly
• 1 part of speech using visual mnemonic pictures
• 1 (different) part of speech taught without visuals
• pictured/without pictured parts of speech taught
on alternating days for 2 groups of subjects
• treatment counterbalanced, so that subjects in
Group A learned the targeted part of speech for
that session (e.g., nouns) pictured, while Group B
learned the same target without pictures;
• the next session, the pictured and non-pictured
conditions were reversed, and so on, alternating
throughout the study.
Parts of Speech
targeted during study:
 Subject/Predicate
noun adverb
Nouns
Plurals
Pronouns
Adjectives
Action Verbs
Simple Present Tense
Present Progressive
Past Tense
Future Tense
Linking Verbs
Adverbs
Prepositions
Conjunctions
c ElementOry.com
• pretest task assessed knowledge of targeted part
of speech assessed before each session began
• parallel posttest at end of each session (same task, page
format, and same sentence structures but different words)
Subjects and Predicates
Name ____________________
___ Pre
Date: __________
Subjects and Predicates
Name ____________________
___ Post
Date: __________
Draw a line between the complete subject and the
complete predicate.
Draw a line between the complete subject and the
complete predicate.
1. A car drives across the country.
1. A horse runs around the pasture
2. A spy watches the president.
2. A scientist views the alien.
3. Boys and girls ride quickly.
3. Girls and boys eat slowly.
4. Actors put on their costumes.
4. Eskimos put on their snowsuits.
5. The host serves all of the food.
5. The clerk sells some of the clothes
Write the simple subject on the line and underline the
simple predicate once.
Write the simple subject on the line and underline the
simple predicate once.
6. ________________ The movie has ended.
6. ________________ The play has begun
7. _________________ No one in our choir is singing.
7. _________________ No one in their band is playing.
8. _________________ All of the dogs have bones.
8. _________________ All of the cats have milk.
9. _________________ A small frog will jump next.
9. _________________ A large kangaroo will leap now.
10. ________________ He will buy the food tomorrow.
10. ________________ She will sell the bike today.
Daily Lesson
Each 90 minute intervention session followed the
same format for both word types:
• Pretest (15 min)
• Explicit teaching of target using worksheets,
with or without visual mnemonic pictures
(30 min)
• Reading with reference to target parts of
speech to explain the meaning of difficult
passages
• Posttest (15 min)
Results
Teaching Grammar Without Pictures Results:
 The percentage correct for parts of speech taught
without grammar pictures increased by an average
of 13.09% (SD 14.145) from 49.91 % (SD = 15.99%)
to 63.00% (SD = 18.99).
 Three of the children displayed negative growth
for the parts of speech taught without pictures
ranging from -2% to -4%, while four showed
increases greater than 20%.
Teaching Grammar With Pictures Results:
 The percentage correct for parts of speech taught
with iconic imagery increased by 22.73% (SD = 13.290)
from 45.18% (SD = 15.986) to 67.91% (SD=21.984).
 One child displayed negative growth of -7% while
seven showed increases greater than 20%.
 Thus, 7 of 8 subjects increased their correct
responses to those parts of speech taught with
pictures, but only 4 of the same subjects increased
correct responses to those parts of speech learned
without pictures.
t-test
The difference between the parts of speech taught with
versus without mnemonic grammar pictures in percent
of change from pretest to posttest was analyzed via a
paired t-test calculated using arcsine transformed data.
The resulting one-tailed t was significant (t= 2.051, df
10, p < .032).
Results indicate greater increases for the parts of
speech taught with pictures than for the parts of
speech taught without pictures.
(t= 2.051, df 10, p < .032).
Discussion
This study showed that visual mnemonic grammar
pictures did facilitate learning parts of speech for
children with a history of LLD. This study expanded on
the findings of Dinkins who showed they also were
effective for low SES students.
The use of a visual mnemonic appears to work because:
1) it reduces the load on short-term auditory memory
as the visual definition is seen while the words in
the sentence are compared. The definition does
not need to be remembered and rehearsed to
perform the task.
2) Long-term, the definitional cues pictured on the
words help the child to internalize the metadefinition. The printed words and pictures are
overlapping on the mnemonic, so that the
meaning and form of the part of speech are
together in visual memory.
After using the pictures several times the child
has memorized the grammar picture and no
longer needs the card to recognize the part of
speech. Thus, at posttest without the use of the
card, the child still increases performance.
Anecdote
• One year later one of the authors saw a
subject from the study in a homework
program. The child was working on
Language Arts. When asked if he needed
help, the child replied, “No, I learned how
to do this at LSU and I’m great at grammar.
I just think of these pictures they showed
us and I can figure out what something is.”
References
Dinkins, E.L. (2006). Examining middle school students learning language arts
skills in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LSU, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hoffman, P.R., & Norris, J.A. (2005). Visual strategies to facilitate written
language. In R. J. McCauley and M. E. Fey (Eds.) Treatment of Language
Disorders in Children (pp.347 – 382). Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
Nelson, N.W., Bahr, C.M., & Van Meter, A. M. (2003). The writing lab approach
to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
Norris, J.A. (2005). Teaching Grammar Visually. ElementOry.com
Weaver, C. (1996). Lessons to share: Teaching grammar in the context of
writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The authors would like to thank all of the children who participated in the
study. A special thanks is also extended to the graduate clinicians who
participated in the study and to Ginger Collins, MA, CCC-SLP and Rebecca
Gouvier, MA, CCC-SLP who served as clinical supervisors.
For more information: [email protected] [email protected]