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 the following required sources:

  • “Flexible Retrieval: When True Inferences Produce False Memories”
  • “Memory Suppression in Alzheimer’s Disease”
  • “Mnemonic Instruction in Science and Social Studies for Students with Learning Problems: A Review”
  • “Short-Term Memory and Long-Term Memory Are Still Different”
  • “The Development of Real-Time Stability Supports Visual Working Memory Performance: Young Children’s Feature Binding Can Be Improved Through Perceptual Structure”
  • Memory

In your initial post, you will apply what you learned from each of the five articles, but you will discuss the findings and implications for just one of these articles. The articles are assigned based on the first letter of your last name. Please see the list below to determine which of the articles you will focus on for your initial post based on the first letter of your last name:

  • A through E: “Flexible Retrieval: When True Inferences Produce False Memories”
  • F through J: “Memory Suppression in Alzheimer’s Disease”
  • K through O: “Mnemonic Instruction in Science and Social Studies for Students with Learning Problems: A Review”
  • P through T: “Short-Term Memory and Long-Term Memory Are Still Different”
  • U through Z: “The Development of Real-Time Stability Supports Visual Working Memory Performance: Young Children’s Feature Binding Can Be Improved Through Perceptual Structure”

In your initial post,

  • Explain the empirical research presented in your assigned article, applying appropriate citations and references.
  • Describe, in your own words, how the research relates to your own experiences as well as how this area of psychology may have affected your past or current beliefs about memory development. Do the research findings refute or support your current beliefs, and in what ways? Are there variables about memory of which you were unaware based on your article?
  • Apply skeptical inquiry to the potential problems that might arise from research in the area of memory, and relate it to the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
  • Provide a rationale for whether or not this premise is valid and/or appropriate based on the findings reported by the assigned articles.

It is recommended that you research articles in the Ashford University Library to support your assertions if the required articles do not provide sufficient information. Your initial post should be at least 500 words in length.

 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
Class Profile Student Name English Language Learner Socio-economic Status Ethnicity Gender IEP/504 Other Age Reading Performance Level Math Performance Level Parental Involvement Internet Available at Home Arturo Yes Low SES Hispanic Male No Tier 2 RTI for Reading Grade level One year below grade level At grade level Med No Bertie No Low SES Asian Female No None Grade level One year above grade level At grade level Low Yes Beryl No Mid SES White Female No NOTE: School does not have gifted program Grade level Two years above grade level At grade level Med Yes Brandie No Low SES White Female No Tier 2 RTI for Math Grade level At grade level One year below grade level Low No Dessie No Mid SES White Female No Tier 2 RTI for Math Grade level Grade level One year below grade level Med Yes Diana Yes Low SES White Female No Tier 2 RTI for Reading Grade level One year below grade level At grade level Low No Donnie No Mid SES African American Female No Hearing Aids Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Eduardo Yes Low SES Hispanic Male No Tier 2 RTI for Reading Grade level One year below grade level At grade level Low No Emma No Mid SES White Female No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Low Yes Enrique No Low SES Hispanic Male No Tier 2 RTI for Reading One year above grade level One year below grade level At grade level Low No Fatma Yes Low SES White Female No Tier 2 RTI for Reading Grade level One year below grade level One year above grade level Low Yes Frances No Mid SES White Female No Diabetic Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Francesca No Low SES White Female No None Grade level At grade level At grade level High No Fredrick No Low SES White Male Learning Disabled Tier 3 RTI for Reading and Math One year above grade level Two years below grade level Two years below grade level Very High No Ines No Low SES Hispanic Female Learning Disabled Tier 2 RTI for Math Grade level One year below grade level One year below grade level Low No Jade No Mid SES African American Female No None Grade level At grade level One year above grade level High Yes Kent No High SES White Male Emotion-ally Disabled None Grade level At grade level One year above grade level Med Yes Lolita No Mid SES Native American/ Pacific Islander Female No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Maria No Mid SES Hispanic Female No NOTE: School does not have gifted program Grade level At grade level Two years above grade level Low Yes Mason No Low SES White Male No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Nick No Low SES White Male No None Grade level One year above grade level At grade level Med No Noah No Low SES White Male No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Sharlene No Mid SES White Female No None Grade level One year above grade level At grade level Med Med Sophia No Mid SES White Female No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Stuart No Mid SES White Male No Allergic to peanuts Grade level One year above grade level At grade level Med Yes Terrence No Mid SES White Male No None Grade level At grade level At grade level Med Yes Wade No Mid SES White Male No None Grade level At grade level One year above grade level Med Yes Wayne No High SES White Male Learning Disabled Tier 3 RTI for Math Grade level One year below grade level Two years below grade level High Yes Wendell No Mid SES African American Male Learning Disabled Tier 3 RTI for Math Grade level One year below grade level Two years below grade level Med Yes Yung No Mid SES Asian Male No NOTE: School does not have gifted program One year below grade level Two years above grade level Two years above grade level Low Yes © 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
 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) note

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-12hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now

Do you have an upcoming essay or assignment due?

All of our assignments are originally produced, unique, and free of plagiarism.

If yes Order Paper Now