Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics and Computer-Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with Learning and Cognitive Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2002
Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics and Computer-Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with Learning and Cognitive Disabilities
This paper describes the effectiveness of Memory Math, a multimedia software program developed to teach students with learning and cognitive disabilities to effectively use a peg- and keyword mnemonic strategy to learn basic multiplication facts. According to the math Standards (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000), accuracy with basic facts is a critical element in the development of new skills and achievement in higher levels of math. One avenue for improving accuracy on basic skills is computer-assisted instruction (CAI). CAI offers an alternative to the teacher-intensive coaching often required to facilitate self-directed performance on basic skills. This paper demonstrates that CAI provides an effective mechanism for teaching students a mnemonic memory strategy to increase their independent performance and accuracy on tasks of basic multiplication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerD.M.WolfM.M., & RisleyT.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–94.
2.
BarronB.BransfordJ.KulewiczS., & HasselbringT. (April, 1989). Uses of macrocontexts to facilitate mathematical reasoning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.
3.
CarnineD. (1980). Preteaching versus concurrent teaching of the component skills of a multiplication algorithm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 375–379.
4.
CarnineD.JonesE.D., & DixonR. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 406–427.
5.
CawleyJ.F. & FrazitaR.R. (1996). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research, 11, 230–237.
6.
CawleyJ., & MillerJ. (1989a). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of learning disabled children: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–255.
7.
CawleyJ.F. & MillerJ.H. (1989b). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children and learning disabilities: Implications for instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 11, 230–237.
8.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FoleyT.E.SalmonS., & RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328.
9.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.YanW., & MillerJ. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 68–74.
10.
CawleyJ.F., & RainesR. (1996). Mathematics as communication: Using the interactive unit. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 28(2), 29–34.
DeshlerD.EllisE.S., & LenzB.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods. Denver: Love.
13.
GearyD.C. (1990). A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404.
14.
GearyD.C. & BrownS.C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in gifted, normal, and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 787–797.
15.
GreeneG. (1999). Mnemonic multiplication fact instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 141–147.
16.
HasselbringT.S.GoinL., & BransfordJ. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.
17.
HersonM., & BarlowD.H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).
19.
IrishC. (2002). Memory Math (Unpublished Beta Version). [Computer software]. Available from author.
20.
JitendraA.K.SalmentoM.M., & HaydtL.A. (1999). A case analysis of fourth-grade subtraction instruction in basal mathematics programs: Adherence to important instructional design criteria. Learning Disabilities Research, 17, 69–79.
21.
KazdinA.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
MastropieriM.BakkenJ.P., & ScruggsT.E. (1991). Mathematics instruction for individuals with mental retardation: A perspective and research synthesis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 115–129.
23.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT.E., & ShiahS. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(2), 89–98.
24.
MastropieriM., & ScruggsT.E. (2000a). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
25.
MastropieriM., & ScruggsT.E. (2000b). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
26.
MillerS., & MercerC.D. (1997). Education aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56.
27.
National Academy Press. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (BransfordBrown, & Cocking (Eds.) Washington, DC: Author.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29.
Ohio Department of Education. (1982). Rules for the Education of Handicapped Children. Columbus, OH: Author.
30.
ParmarR.S.CawleyJ.F., & FrazitaR.R. (1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 566.
31.
PellegrinoJ.W., & GoldmanS.R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 23–32, 57.
32.
PoplinM.S. (1995). The dialectic nature of technology and holism: Use of technology to liberate individuals with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 131–140.
33.
StrichartS.S., & GotliebJ. (1983). Characteristics of mild mental retardation. In MillerT.L. & DavisE.E. (Eds.), The mildly handicapped student (pp. 37–65). Orlando FL: Grune & Stratton.
34.
SwansonH.L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.
35.
SwansonH.L. (2001). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129–140.
36.
SwansonH.L. & HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321.
37.
SwansonH.L.HoskynM., & LeeC.L. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.
38.
TawneyJ.W., & GastD.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
39.
TorgesenJ.K. (1980). Conceptual and educational implications of the use of efficient task strategies by learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13(7), 364–371.
40.
WoodwardJ., & HowardL. (1994). The misconceptions of youth: Errors and their mathematical meaning. Exceptional Children, 61, 126–136.
41.
ZentallS.S. (1990). Fact-retrieval automatization and math problem solving by learning disabled, attention-disordered, and normal adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 856–865.
42.
ZentallS.S., & FerkinsM.A. (1993). Mathematical problem solving for youth with ADHD, with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(1), 6–18.
43.
ZiglerE. (1969). Development versus difference theories of mental retardation and problems of motivation. Americal Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 536–556.
