24
Pictorial Mnemonic Strategies
for Special Education
MARGO A. MASTROPIERP and THOMAS E. SCRUGGS
Utah State University
JOEL R. LEVI~
Universityof Wisconsin
Abstract
Recently, the associative learning of exceptional children has been
found to be greatly facilitated by the use of pictorial mnemonic
strategies. This paper reviews the use of such strategies as an instructional tool for both non handicapped and handicapped learners. Recent
research has indicated that (a) mildly handicapped learners can sucessfuUy employ fairly complex mnemonic strategies, and (b) mnemonic
strategies can be adapted to many different content areas. In this
research, students taught to use mnemonic strategies have consistently
outperformed students taught using direct instruction and free-study
techniques. Implications for the improved learning and retention of
school content by exceptional students are discussed.
The history of special education has been marked by a continuous search for methods to
maximize the learning potential of special needs students. Many of these methods have been at least
partly successful; others have failed, or gone"out of fashion." Over the years, however, one classof
methods--mnemonic techniques--has often produced positive results with both normal and special
populations (see, for example, Jensen & Rohwer, 1963; Martin, 1978; Taylor & Tumure, 1979). In
this paper, we describe some recent explorations of mnemonic techniques; explorations that should
have direct implications for instructing exceptional learners.
Mnemonic techniques, devices, or strategies are systematic procedures for enhancing one's
memory (Levin, in press). The use of mnemonics as a tool to improve memory has been recorded as
far back as the ancient Greeks (see Yates, 1966). However, only within the past few years has the
importance of mnemonic techniques in learning been recognized (for reviews, see Bellezza, 1981;
Higbee, 1979; Levin 1981a; Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982; and Taylor & Turnure, 1979).
Powerful increases in recall performance have often been obtained through the use of these methods.
Throughout this article, "mnemonic techniques" will refer to both mnemonic strategies applied by a
learner and mnemonic materials provided for a learner. Levin (1976) has distinguished between the
two as "induced" and "imposed" approaches, respectively. It should also be mentioned here that
although other research based on picture and imagery techniques might be regarded by some as
1
The first author's contribution to this manuscript was funded in part by a post-doctoral fellowship awarded by
Utah State University and the Exceptional Child Center.
2
The third author's contibution was funded in part by the National Institute of Education through the Wisconsin
Center for Education Research.
Journal of Special Education Technology
VOLUME VI
NUMBER 3
Summer 1983
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Levin
25
"mnemonic" (e.g., Warner & Alley, 1981), it does not qualify as such according to the three H
components described below (see also Levin's, 1981b, distinction between "transformational" and
"representational" imagery).
A particularly successful mnemonic technique is the keyword method. In a recent review,
Pressley et al. (1982) stated that mnemonic techniques clearly have potential for improving school
learning. Atkinson and Haugh (1975) originally tested the procedure in teaching foreign language
vocabulary words to college students. The keyword method encompasses the "three R's" of
associative mnemonic techniques (Levin, 1983). In the first recoding step, an unfamiliar term (e.g., a
foreign word) is changed into a familiar, acoustically similar, "keyword." In the second relating step,
the keyword is linked with the desired response (e.g., the foreign word's definition) via an interactive
picture or image. With these two components firmly in place, the learner is later able to retrieve the
appropriate information systematically. For example, the Spanish word carta means (postal) letter.
Cart, a concrete word, familiar and acoustically similarto carta, would be a good keyword; and a good
interactive picture might be a shopping cart with a letter inside it (see Figure 1). To retrieve the meaning
of carta, the learner is led directly from the stimulus (carta) to the keyword (cart) to the interactive
picture (the shopping cart with a letter inside it) to the appropriate response (letterJ,3
FIGURE 1:
3
Mnemonic picture for vocabulary learning (Pressley & Levin, 1978).
Obviously, direct observation of the retrieval process is not possible, and so one cannot definitivelyassert that
students capitalize on the mnemonic techniques available in such studies. The conclusion of the present authors
that learners do capitalize on available mnemonic techniques is based upon the followingfindings of numerous
previous investigations: (a) when questioned at the end of an experimental session, mnemonic subjects both
report having employed their instructed technique and are readily able to describe the interactive pictures, (b)
learning performance has been found to be much higher on those items reported by subjects to have been
learned menemonicaHy than on those items learned by other techniques, and (c) students who are provided
with mnemonic instruction typically exhibit qualitatively different response patterns than their nonmnemonic
counterparts (as evidenced by different error patterns, absence of serial position effects, greater response
latencies, etc.).
26
Pictorial Mnemonic Strategies
Effectiveness of Keyword Mnemonics
Numerous keyword investigations followed Atkinson and Raugh's (1975) initial work, using
adults as subjects (see Pressley et aI., 1982). However, Pressley (1977a) was the first to modify the
keyword method so that it could be profitably applied by an elementary school-aged population. In
the adult studies, subjects had to generate mnemonic images internally, on their own. However,
because it is difficult to induce such imagery in young children (Levin, 1976, Pressley, 1977b),
Pressley (1977a) provided mnemonic illustrations to second- and fifth-grade students in a Spanish
vocabulary-learning task (i.e., an imposed imagery approach was adopted). In comparison to two
no-strategy control groups, keyword subjects at both grade levels were able to produce substantially
more correct definitions of the Spanish words.
Pressley, Levin, and their colleagues continued to investigate the educational potential of the
keyword method--and extensions thereof-In a variety of content areas (see Levin, 1981a; Levin, in
press; and Pressley et al., 1982). For example, these investigators have successfully applied the
method to the acquisition of unfamiliar native-language (English) vocabulary (e.g., Levin,
McCormick, Miller, Berry, & Pressley, 1982; McGivern & Levin, 1983), social studies content, such as
remembering cities and their products (e.g., O'Sullivan & Pressley, in press; Pressley & DennisRounds, 1980), the states and their capitals (e.g., Levin, Berry, Miller, & Bartell, 1982; Levin,
Shriberg, Miller, McCormick, & Levin, 1980), and the order of U.S. presidents (Levin, Dretzke,
McCormick, Scruggs, McGivern, & Mastropieri, 1983; Levin, McCormick, & Dretzke, 1981), as well
as expository prose passages (e.g., Levin, Shriberg, & Berry, 1983; Shriberg, Levin, McCormick, &
Pressley, 1982).
A strategy combination (keyword, pegword, and loci methods) has been effectively used to teach
average eighth graders (Levin et aI., 1981) and academically precocious (gifted) seventh graders
(Levin et al., 1983, Exp. 3) the chronological order of U.S. presidents. This complex pictorial strategy
combines a keyword for the president's name (e.g., tie for Tyler),a rhyming pegword to representthe
numbers 1-10 (e.g., 1 is bun, 2 is shoe, etc.), and a seasonal locus to represent the number decades
(e.g., 1-10 is a spring garden scene, 11-20 is a summer beach scene, 21-30 is a fallfootball scene, and
31-40 is a winter snow scene). Each president (keyword) is represented in an interactive picture with
his corresponding number (pegword in a specific locus). For example, the keyword for President Tyler
is tie, and the associated number is represented by a hen (for 10) in a garden scene (firstdecade). The
corresponding mnemonic illustration seen in Figure 2 depicts' 'a hen scared by a tie in a garden." Note
that this relatively complex illustration contains the essential recoding, relating, and retrieving mnemonic components. In this case, when learners are asked what number President Tyler is, they have a
dirct retrieval path from Tyler to No. 10 via the picture containing the keyword tie (Tyler)scaring a hen
in a Garden (10). Although such a coding and retrieval process clearly requires time and practice
(Levin et aI., 1983), junior high school students can be taught to use it effectively.
Even questions such a "How generaiizable are mnemonics?" and "How durable are mnemonics?" have been specifically addressed. For instance, Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980) demonstrated that under certain conditions and at specific age levels, students are capable of transferring the
keyword method to similar tasks. These results suggest that instruction in mnemonic strategy usage
can produce a generalizable skill (see Levin & Pressley, in press). Other studies have examined the
durability of the effects obtained with mnemonics (McCormick & Levin, 1984; Peters & Levin, 1984).
Mnemonically instructed students maintained superior recall performance over control students on
delayed recall tests administered two days later and one week later, respectively. Thus, mnemonic
prose-learning benefits appear not be be restricted to tests of immediate recall.
27
Masnopieri, Scruggs, Levin
10
John TYLER
hen
tie
en
No
.
.~".,..._ --_.~---,..
HENSI
FIGURE 2: Combined pictorial mnemonic for learning the order of the presidents. (From Levin et aI., 1981).
Mnemonics in Special Education
It has been found that mnemonic techniques can enhance substantially the learning of average
and above-average students. A question that naturally arises iswhether these procedures are as useful
for cognitively less advanced students, or for students with learning and/or behavior problems.
Encouraging results come from the previously cited research with young children, as well as from
recent studies by McGivern and Levin (1983), Levin, Johnson, Pittetman, Hayes, Levin, Shriberg, &
Toms-Bronowski (in press), and Peters and Levin (1984). In each ofthese latter studies, subjects with
below-grade-Ievel reading and language skillsbenefited from keyword mnemonic instruction.
By contrast, instructions simply to imagine the content of prose passages have yielded equivocal
results (Pressley & Levin, in press). For example, Levin (1973) and Rose, Cundick, and Higbee
(1983) found that such representational imagery instructions enhanced the prose recall of inefficient
learners, whereas Bender and Levin (1978) and Warner and Alley (1981) did not. It is important to
note that these and numerous other prose-learning imagery studies do not incorporate the mnemonic
(transformational) imagery component of the keyword method.
Pictorial Mnemonic Strategies
28
Pictorial mnemonic techniques have been recently implemented with special populations, and
the results have been especially promising. For example, Berry (1983) taught fourth-grade learningdisabled (LD) students unfamiliar English vocabulary words using mnemonic illustrations. Compared
to no-strategy control subjects, mnemonic subjects remembered more definitions of the new words.
Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin (in press b, Exp, 1) taught ninth-grade LD youths the hardness
levels of 14 minerals (ranging from 1 = bauxite to 10 = diamond) via either a combined pictorial
mnemonic strategy, a questioning method, or a free-study technique. The ninety LD students
represented nearly all ninth grade LD students in a large southwestern metropolitan school district.
Seventy-three students were Anglo-American, while the remaining 17 represented
Mexican-American, American Indian, and black minority groups. All had been classified learning
disabled according to local school district criteria, which included a two-year discrepancy between
academic functioning and average itelligence. Mean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised
scores of this group were 95 (SD = 10). These students were further classified into two groups on the
basis of their reading comprehension subtest scores on the California Achievement Test (below the
30th percentile or above the 40th percentile). Mean CAT reading comprehension subtest score was
47.69 (SD = 9.29) for the higher comprehension group, and 18.62 (SD = 7.40) for the lower
comprehension group. Within each comprehension level, students were randomly assigned to three
experimental conditions: mnemonic, questioning, and free study. Students were seen individually by
one experimenter in a quiet area within the student's own school. All students were seen by the
experimenter for an equivalent amount of time (21 minutes). Mnemonic students were provided with
interactive pictures of keywords for the minerals and pegwords for their associated hardness levels.
For instance, the keyword for corundum was car and the pegword for its associated hardness level of
nine was vine; the interactive illustration was a picture of a car caught in vines (see Figure 3). Again,
CO~UN'DUM
FIGURE 3:
(car)
9
(Vine.)
Combined pictorial mnemonic for learning the hardness levels of minerals.
(From Mastropieri et al., in pressa).
Maslropieri, Scruggs, Levin
29
notice that when the question "What number on the hardness scale is corundum?" is asked, learners
would be reminded of the keyword car, then think back to the picture of a car caught in vines, then
recall that vine is nine, and finally respond with the correct number (9). Students in a direct
questioning condition were shown cards depicting the mineral names, hardness levels, and actual
color pictures of the minerals. In addition, flash cards containing the mineral name on one side and the
hardness level on the reverse side were used. While showing the cards, the experimenter said, e.g.,
"Corundum is 9 on the hardness scale. What number on the hardness scale is corundum?" Students
were prompted and given corrective feedback whenever necessary. Students in the free-study
condition were given a typed listof the minerals and hardness levels, in addition to the same materials
used in the direct questioning condition. These students were instructed to use any or all of the
materials that would help them learn the most information.
In the Mastropieri et al. (in press b) study, mnemonic subjects recalled over twice as many
minerals as did subjects in the two other conditions (means of 10.5, 3.9, and 5.0, out of a possible 14,
for mnemonic, questioning, and free study, respectively). Although the lower-achieving group scored
generally lower than the higher-achieving group, the overall pattern of conditions differences was
similar for both groups. In a followup investigation, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin (in press b, Exp.
2) administered the same task to non handicapped students two years younger than the LD sample.
Subjects were 45 seventh graders attending the same public schools as the LD students, none of
whom had been referred for special education services. The use of average seventh graders was
intended to test the hypothesis that LD students could generally be expected to perform similarly to
average students two years younger. It was found that mean recall and the pattern of differences
among conditions in the two experiments was quite similar, with means of 11.6, 3.8, and 7.1 (out of a
possible 14 minerals) associated with mnemonic, questioning, and free-study conditions, respectively.
Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin (in press a) extended this research by comparing the effects of
the pictorial mnemonic strategy with a direct instruction procedure for learning the hardness levels of
minerals. They modeled their direct instruction condition after Rosenshine's (1979) proposed direct
instruction components, as well as SRA Corrective Mathematics programs (Engelmann & Carnine,
1981) and Comprehension Skills (Englemann, Osborne, & Hanner, 1978). The subjects were
attending high school special education classes for LD students in the same location as the Mastropieri
et al. (in press b) study, and had been classified LD by those same criteria. All subjects were seen by
one experimenter in regular instructional groups (ranging in size of three to six students). Six groups
were randomly assigned to each of the two instructional conditions. All groups were with the
experimenter for 20 minutes. The direct instruction condition included unison responding on signal,
small work groups, fast-paced questioning, immediate corrective feedback, and cumulative rehearsal
of previous material. Because additional teaching time in this condition replaced keyword and
pegword learning in the mnemonic condition, students in the direct instruction condition received
approximately five additional minutes of instructional time on the minerals and their hardness levels.
The mnemonic instructional procedures paralleled those of Mastropieri et al. (in press b) with the
exception that students were taught in small groups. Mnemonic instruction students outrecalled direct
instruction students by a substantial, statistically significant amount (means of 11.2 and 7.0 correct,
out of a possible 14, respectively). This finding has also been replicated on a smaller sample of
students classified by their schools as behaviorally disordered (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1982).
In Experiment 2 of the Mastropieri et al. (in press a) study, educable mentally retarded (EMR)
junior high school students learned the hardness levels of minerals using somewhat modified
mnemonic and direct instruction procedures. All subjects were attending self-contained special
education classes in rural southwestern school district. The subjects' mean IQ was 66.50 (SD = 7.65).
In this experiment, students leamed one set of materials according to one method and another set of
materials according to the other method in a crossover design (counterbalanced across students). The
procedures were modified as follows: (a) allsubjects had previously been taught the pegword rhyming
Pictorial Mnemonic Strategies
30
system for the numbers 1-10, (b) in the mnemonic condition, subjects were required to repeat the
strategy twice (rather than once) to the experimenter, (c) students were seen individually in each
condition, and (d) students were taught only 8, rather than 14, minerals. Again,
mnemonic instruction resulted in a higher level of recall than did direct instruction (means of 5.1 and
3.0, out of 8 possible, respectively). In fact, every student remembered more mineral hardness levels
with mnemonic instruction than they did with direct instruction.
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Leven (in press) utilized the same procedures in teaching vocabulary
words to another sample of EMR students. Subjects were drawn from self-contained junior high
school classes for EMR students and had a mean IQ of 64 (SD = 7.6). All subjects were taught 10
unfamiliar vocabulary words (e.g.,dah/ia, meaning flower) by direct instruction and 10 vocabulary
words via keyword mnemonic instruction in a crossover design. Treatment orders and word listswere
counterbalanced. Students were seen individually in their own classrooms by one of two experimenters. Results paralleled those of Mastropieri et al. (in press a), in that when students learned
mnemonically, they learned more vocabulary words than when they learned by direct instruction
procedures (means of 7.15 and 4.80, respectively, out of a possible 10). In addition, it was found that
students made significantly more intralist intrusions (d. Mayer & Bromage, 1980) in the direct
instruction condition than in the mnemonic condition, even when total errors were controlled. This
finding suggests stronger stimulus-response connections were produced under the mnemonic
condition.
In the above cases, it was found that students taught mnemonically outperformed students
taught according to the principles of direct instruction. It should be noted, however, that direct
instruction has reportedly been highly successful for teaching "basic skills" in both exceptional and
normal populations (Becker, Engelmann, Carnine, & Maggs, 1982). Direct instruction, which employs simple rehearsal as a major component, seems ideally suited for the teaching of math facts and
reading decoding skills (i.e., skills that depend on overlearning and automaticity). In contrast,
mnemonic strategies seem better suited for the systematic storage and retrieval of associative facts,
such as vocabulary, science and social studies facts, in a variety of content domains. Perhaps some
combination of direct instruction and mnemonic instruction is indicated for maximizing the learning of
children from special populations.
Recently, Engelmann and Carnine (1982) have suggested the use of "visual displays" as an aid
to direct instruction procedures in the teaching of associative facts in content areas. In fact, published
materials have recently been introduced that employ the use of such displays (Engelmann, Davis, &
Davis, 1981). Although some preliminary research has been conducted that appears promising
(Darch & Carnine, 1981; Sprick, 1979), the present authors can find no controlled research
addressing the use of such "visual displays" with exceptional children.
Future Applications
Although initial research in the area of pictorial mnemonics has been highly successful, more
research is necessary to determine more specificallythe procedural adaptations that are required for
exceptional learners. That exceptionalleamers can benefit substantially from mnemonic instruction
has only recently been documented. Specific circumstances in which keyword mnemonic strategies
can be usefully adapted for classroom use by exceptional students, including specific content area and
possible interactions with individual differences variables, remain to be investigated. Whether the
observed mnemonic advantages would be maintained over time and in diverse content areas remains
to be seen, although evidence from the Scruggs et al. (in press) study suggests that interference from
previous learning is greater in nonmnemonic conditions. Finally, the important issues of maintenance
and transfer of mnemonic strategies remain to be investigated in handicapped learners.
31
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Levin
Mnemonic instruction has produced consistently superior results over a variety of control
conditions in adult, elementary, and secondary school-age non handicapped populations, as wellas in
elementary and secondary school-age handicapped (educable mentally retarded, learning disabled,
and behavior disordered) populations. In addition, students have exhibited superior retention of
learned information in studies that have examined delayed recall. Thus, it appears that pictorial
mnemonic techniques possess valuable untapped potential for special educators.
References
Atkinson, R. C; & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a
Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 126-133.
Becker, W. c., Engelmann, S., Carnine, D. w., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct instruction technology: Making
learning happen. In P. Karoly & J. J. Steffen (Eds.), Improving children's competence: Advances in child
behavioral analysis and therapy (Vol. 1). Lexington, MA: Health.
Bellezza, F. S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification, characteristics, and criteria. Review of Educational
Research, 51, 247-275.
Bender, B. G., & Levin, J. R. (1978). Pictures, imagery, and retarded children's prose learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 583-588.
Berry, J. K. (1983). Unpublished data, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Darch, c., & Carnine, D. (1981). Content area instruction--The role of information organization, learning
strategies, and task structure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
Engelmann,S., & Carnine, D. (1981). Series guide: Corrective mathematics. Chicago: Science Research
Associates.
Engelmann,S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington
Publishers.
Engelmann,S., Davis, K., & Davis, G. (1981). Your world offacts, level I. Eugene, Oregon: E-B Press.
Engelmann,S., Osborne,S., & Hanner, S. (1978). Comprehension skills:ReadingcomprehensionsB. Chicago:
Science Research Associates, 1978.
Higbee, K. L. (1979). Recent research on visual mnemonics: Historical roots and educational fruits. Review of
Educational Research, 49, 611-629.
Jensen, A. R., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1963). The effect of verbal mediation on the learning and retention of
paired-associates by retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 68, 80-84.
Levin, J. R. (1973). Inducing comprehension in poor readers: A test of a recent model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 19-24.
Levin, J. R. (1976). What have we learned about maximizing what children learn? In J. R. Levin & V. L. Allen
(Eds.), Cognitive learning in children: Theories and strategies. New York: Academic Press.
Levin, J. R. (1981). The mnemonic '80s: Keywords in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 16, 65-82. (a)
Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading. New York: Academic Press. (b)
Levin, J. R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Practical illustrations. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin
(Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Levin, J. R. (in press). Educational applications of mnemonic pictures: Possibilities beyond your wildest imagination. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Irnagery and the educational process. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
Levin, J. R, Berry, J. K., Miller, G. E., & BarteU,N. P. (1982). More on how (and how not) to remember the states
and their capitals. Elementary School Journal, 82, 379-388.
32
Pictorial Mnemonic Strategies
Levin, J. R., Dretzke, B. J, McCormick, C. B., Scruggs, T. c. McGivem, J. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1983).
Leaming via mnemonic pictures: Analysis of the presidential process. Educational Communication and
Technology Joumal, 31,161-173.
Levin, J. R., Johnson, D. D., Pittelman, S. D., Hayes, B. L., Levin, K M., Shriberg, L. K, & Toms-Bronowski, S.
(in press). A comparison of semantic- and mnemonic-based vocabulary-learning strategies. Reading
Psychology.
Levin, J. R., McCormick, C. B., & Dretzke, B. J. (1981). A combined pictorial mnemonic strategy for ordered
information. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 219-225.
Levin, J. R.. McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., Berry, J. K, & Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic
vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Joumal, 19, 121-136.
Levin, J. R., & Pressley, M. (in press). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What's fact, what's fiction. In R. F. Dillon
& R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Levin, J. R. Shriberg, L. K, & Berry, J. K (1983). A concrete strategy for remembering abstract prose. American
Educational Research Journal, 20, 277-290.
Levin, J. R., Shriberg, L. K, Miller,G. E., McCormick, C. B., & Levin, B. B. (1980). The keyword method in the
classroom: How to remember the states and their capitals. Elementary School Journal, 80, 185-191.
Martin, C. J. (1978). Mediational processes in the retarded: Implications for teaching reading. In N. R. Ellis(Ed.),
International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Direct instruction vs, mnemonic instruction: Relative
benefits for exceptional learners. Joumal of Special Education. (a)
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Transformational mnemonic strategies with
learning-disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (b)
Mayer, R. E., & Bromage, B. K (1980). Different recall protocols for technical texts due to advance
organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 209-225.
McCormick, C. B., & Levin, J. R. (1984). A comparison of different prose-learning variations of the mnemonic
keyword method. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 379-398.
McGivern, J. E., & Levin, J R. (1983). The keyword method and children's vocabulary learning: An interaction
with vocabulary knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 46-54.
O'Sullivan J., & Pressley, M. (in press). Completeness of instruction and strategy transfer. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology.
Peters, E. E., & Levin, J. R. (1984, April). Effects of mnemonic imagery strategy on good and poor readers' prose
recall. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.
Pressley, M. (1977). Children's use of the keyword method to learn simple Spanish vocabulary words. Joumalof
Educational Psychology, 69, 465-472. (a)
Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children's learning: Putting the picture in developmental perspective. Review of
Educational Research, 47,585-622. (b)
Pressley, M., & Dennis-Rounds, J. (1980). Transfer of a mnemonic keyword strategy at two age levels. Joumalof
Educational Psychology, 72,575-582.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J R. (1978). Developmental constraints associated with children's use of the keyword
method of foreign language vocabulary learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 359-372.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Effective learning strategies for the inefficient learner. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.),
Handbook of the cognitive, social, and physiological characteristics of learning disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational
Research, 52, 61-91.
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Levin
33
Rose, M. C, Cundick, B. P., & Higbee, K. L. (1983). Verbal rehearsal and visual imagery: Mnemonic aids for
learning-disabled children. Joumal of Leaming Disabilities, 16,352-354.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research
on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Scruggs,T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1982, November). How to improve memory skillsof behaviorally disordered
youths. Paper presented at the annual conference on Severe Behavior Disorders of Children and Youth,
Tempe, AZ.
Scruggs, 1. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Vocabulary acquisition of retarded students under
direct and mnemonic instruction. American Joumal of Mental Deficiency.
Shriberg, L. K., Levin, J. R., McCormick, C B., & Pressley, M. (1982). Learning about "famous" people via the
keyword method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,238-247.
Sprick, R. S. (1979). A comparison of recall scores for visual-spatial, visual-serial, and auditory presentation for
intermediate grade content. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene).
Taylor, A. M., & Turnure, J. E. (1979). Imagery and verbal elaboration with retarded children: Effects on learning
and memory. In N. R. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory, and research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warner, M. M., & Alley, G. R. (1981). Teaching leaming disabled junior high students to use visual imagery as a
strategy for facilitating recall of reading passages. Lawrence, KS: Institute for Research in Learning
Disabilities, Research Report No. 49.
Yates, F. A. (1966). The art of memory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dr. Margo A. Mastropieri is a Post-Doctoral Fellow and Dr. Thomas E. Scruggs is a Research/
Evaluation Specialist; both at the Developmental Center for the Handicapped, U.S.u. Logan, UT
84322. Dr. Joel R. Levin is Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI 53703