EFFECTS OF INTEGRATED PICTURE MNEMONICS ON THE LETTER RECOGNITION AND LETTER-SOUND ACQUISITION OF TRANSITIONAL FIRST-GRADE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

EFFECTS OF INTEGRATED PICTURE MNEMONICS ON THE LETTER RECOGNITION AND LETTER-SOUND ACQUISITION OF TRANSITIONAL FIRST-GRADE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Barbara M. Fulk, Dee Lohman, and Phillip J. Belfiore Abstract. The effects of an integrated picture mnemonic strategy on the lettersound acquisition of three transitional first-grade students with special needs were investigated using a multiple-baseline-across-students design. Following a baseline period, 20 consonant letters were presented using integrated picture mnemonics. Data were also collected on letter recognition, and students were questioned to determine if they were aware of their strategy use. Results indicated that integrated picture mnemonics were an effective instructional technique for increasing lettersound acquisition and letter recognition. Followup data collected at two-week and four-week delay intervals demonstrated that results maintained over time. Considerable evidence is available to support the notion that failure to recognize and decode letter sounds prevents young students from achieving reading competence (Felton, 93; Hurford, 90; Hurford et al., 93; Hurford & Sanders, 90; Mann, 93). Professionals in the area of reading and learning disabilities have provided a considerable body of research to document that problems in phonemic awareness are the hallmark of children with reading problems (Hurford et al., 93). Thus, if these difficulties could be ameliorated early for these students, it might be possible to reduce or even eliminate the debilitating effects that lack of letter-sound awareness has on reading acquisition (Hurford, 90). Clearly, it is important to document research related to instructional practices that prove to be effective with young children atrisk for reading failure. Mnemonic (i.e., memory-enhancing) instruction typifies one possible strategy for increasing letter-sound learning in young at-risk students. Scruggs and Mastropieri (90a) described mnemonics as the specific reconstruction of target content intended to relate new information to the learner's existing knowledge base and, thus, facilitate retrieval. Mnemonic instruction is a systematic procedure for transforming difficultto-remember stimuli into more easily remembered stimuli (Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 82). This technique has been shown to be more effective than other strategies such as rote repetition of information (Carney, Levin, & Levin, 93) or traditional instructional techniques (Mastropieri & Fulk, 90). BARBARA M. FULK, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Special Education, School of Education, Purdue University. DEE LOHMAN, Ed.S., is Coordinator, Special Services, Kokoko-Center School Corporation, Kokomo, Indiana. PHILLIP J. BELFIORE, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Education Division, Mercyhurst College. Volume 20, Winter 97 33 Sage Publications, Inc. Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May, 2016 is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly www.jstor.org

A substantial amount of research has documented that students with learning disabilities who received mnemonic instruction demonstrated improved recall on both immediate and delayed tests and viewed mnemonic instruction as an enjoyable way of learning (see Mastropieri & Fulk, 90, for a review). Consequently, it appears that mnemonic strategies could prove helpful in improving the prereading skills of young at-risk learners. Few investigations of mnemonic strategy instruction have been conducted with very young students. For example, Kau and Winer (87) reported that young children, ages 3 to 5 years, displayed greater success when stimuli were presented visually and verbally. Pressley et al. (82) found that young children were able to acquire information successfully following presentation of pictures including an interactive illustration. Ehri, Deffner, and Wilce (84) employed picture mnemonics in two investigations conducted with young children. Experimental materials were designed so that each target letter appeared as a salient feature of a common object that began with that phoneme (e.g., "f" was drawn into a flower). Five lowercase letters were instructed either by the subjects' classroom teacher (Exp. 1) or a researcher (Exp. 2). In Experiment 1, subjects were 20 first graders (M age 6 yrs. 9 mo) who had failed the first-level mastery test in their basal reading program. Preschoolers and kindergartners were selected as participants in Exp. 2 to minimize subjects' prior knowledge of letter sounds. Procedures employed by Ehri et al. included the following. First, phonetic segmentation training (e.g., manipulating counters to represent phonemes) was provided prior to initiation of mnemonic letter-sound instruction to ensure that subjects could isolate and produce letter sounds. Second, to ensure attention to the visual features of target letters, subjects were required to write the letters within the mnemonics intervention. Finally, posttests were administered one day following the intervention. Results supported the efficacy of integrated picture mnemonics for teaching the letter-sound relationship. However, the following questions remain unanswered regarding mnemonic lettersound instruction with young learners. First, is phonetic segmentation training a prerequisite for this type of training? Second, is the drawing or writing of letters an essential component of mnemonic instruction for young learners? Certainly, mnemonic interventions would be more time-efficient if these components were determined to be expendable. Third, are young learners able to maintain their letter-sound competencies over an extended time period following mnemonic instruction? The present investigation addressed these questions. A multiple-baseline design was used to explore the effect of integrated picture mnemonics (phonics mnemonics) on the letter-sound acquisition skills of young students. Recall of letter sounds was measured daily during the intervention and at two-week and four-week delay intervals to determine whether or not subjects would maintain improved performance over time. The participants in the present study were similar to those of Ehri et al.'s Exp. 1 (84) in that both groups had experienced difficulties with early reading. However, our participants differed from those in Ehri et al. in two important ways. First, our subjects were recommended for participation by their classroom teachers as those students most in need of a letter-sound intervention compared to all other students at-risk for poor reading in four transitional first-grade classes. Second, these young students had already been identified as eligible for special education support services as described in the following section. METHODS Setting and Participants The study was conducted in a building that housed four transitional first-grade classrooms with approximately 18 students in each room. Intervention sessions occurred in a small office, adjacent to the subjects' transitional classrooms; the room was also utilized for speech therapy. Students had been placed in the transitional program following teacher referral either (a) in the spring of their kindergarten year for attendance during the subsequent school year, or (b) during the first three weeks of first grade for immediate transfer. Each transitional classroom had one full-time teacher and a paraprofessional for half the day. Other services, such as special education, were provided based on eligibility and individual needs. The participants in this study were three students who had previously attended Headstart 34 Learning Disability Quarterly

Table 1 Summary of Subject Information Test Subject IQ PPVT-R Reading Math Spelling Alan 87 46 no score no score no score Dana 83 79 77 62 73 (W-J) 86 66 73 (P-R) Erica 95 70 77 64 81 (W-J) 85 75 77 (P-R) Note. Dana and Erica were evaluated with the Stanford-Binet, 4th Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 86). Alan was evaluated with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R; Wechsler, 89) using performance scales only. Key: W-J = Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (Woodcock& Johnson, 77); P-R = Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) (Dunn& Markwardt, 70); PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Revised (Dunn& Dunn, 81).. preschool followed by regular education kindergarten with special education support services. Teachers referred these three students because they: (a) could not consistently recognize letters in spite of systematic instruction with letter names and letter sounds and (b) displayed an ongoing lack of progress in school. Each subject had attended Headstart preschool classes that presented prereading activities, including exposure to the alphabet and listening to stories. In the kindergarten and transitional first-grade classes, an emerging literacy approach to reading was employed that utilized shared readings and journal writings. In addition, various instructional programs, including computerassisted instruction, were employed for instructing the recognition of letter names and recall of letter sounds and sight words. Teachers verified that the students had not been exposed to mnemonic instruction as an intervention technique prior to this study. All three subjects had been tested by the school psychologist approximately six months prior to the beginning of this intervention. Erica and Dana were six-year-old African-American identical twins, without significant medical nor attendance problems. Both girls were identified as learning disabled (LD) in accordance with federal, state, and local identification guidelines, including evidence of a severe discrepancy (- points) between potential and achievement, and a placement decision made by a case conference committee. The psychologist's reports stated that each girl exhibited difficulty recalling and retaining information in reading/language arts and math. Alan was a seven-year-old Caucasian male who received speech therapy and occupational therapy within the school setting. Alan had been diagnosed with chorea and nystagmus by physicians and had visual acuity of 20/50 (corrected), which required classroom modifications. Alan received consultation services from the teacher for students with visual impairments. Achievement tests were not administered to Alan during his psychological assessment due to limited verbal responses; only performance scales were administered. Additional subject information is presented in Table 1. Dependent and Independent Measures The dependent measure was the number of correct responses made by students on the letter-sound association test where they were presented with individual cards containing one lowercase consonant letter per card. Student performance on letter recognition was also observed and recorded but was not considered as part of the mastery criteria. The independent variable was a mnemonic strategy that presented each lowercase conso- Volume 20, Winter 97 35

nant letter fully integrated into a picture of a common item that began with the initial sound of the consonant letter. The element of integration is what distinguishes these mnemonic illustrations from traditional phonics materials. For example, traditional phonics materials merely present the letter "k" and the illustration of a kite on the same card. However, many young students have difficulty retrieving the precise letter sound that is related to the corresponding common item. In the mnemonic (memoryenhancing) illustration, therefore, the letter "k" was a prominent element of the kite itself. A sample of a mnemonic illustration for the letter "k" is shown in Figure 1. The mnemonic illustrations were developed by the second author and a local high-school student artist to conform with guidelines of Ehri et al. (84) as well as Mastropieri and Scruggs (87). Data Collection and Experimental Design Following approval of this project by Purdue University's Human Subject Committee and prior to data collection, the second author obtained permission from school administrators and the parents of the three students. At this 4? Figure 1. Example of mnemonic illustration for the letter "k." time, the study was discussed with teachers and students who were selected to participate. A multiple-baseline-across-students design was used to evaluate intervention effectiveness. Intervention was discontinued when a student met mastery criteria, defined as 90% accuracy of phonetic sound responses (18/20) in four out of five consecutive assessment sessions. Consequently, when the first student attained three consecutive sessions of nine or more correct answers, intervention was introduced for the second student. This criterion was selected because 9 out of 20 correct answers is 45%, that is, halfway toward the mastery criterion of 90% success on lettersound production. The same procedure was followed for initiating the intervention with the third student. Students participated in a mean of intervention sessions (range 9 - sessions). An a priori decision was made to conduct followup assessment sessions identical to those of baseline at two-week and four-week delay intervals following termination of the intervention. Followup assessments were administered in a manner identical to those of the baseline phase as described below. Procedures Baseline. During baseline assessment sessions, the students were presented with 20 lowercase consonant letters (letter "y" was not included), printed individually on 4 x 5 cards and presented in a randomized order. In order to familiarize the student with the assessment procedures, a mnemonic illustration for the letter "a" was presented first and the student was asked to name the letter and then verbalize the corresponding phonetic sound. Responses were recorded on a coding sheet, and the number of correct responses was calculated and graphed Intervention. This section describes procedures for each individually administered intervention session. First an assessment of the letter sounds for the 20 target consonants was administered with letter cards and procedures described above for the baseline condition. Second, the mnemonic intervention was introduced with a sample of the materials and procedures for the letter "a." Third, cards containing the integrated mnemonic illustrations were presented individually to the subject according to a brief script, which required the researcher to state the letter name and letter sound and to name the illustrated item beginning with each letter sound. 36 Learning Disability Quarterly

For example, the brief script that was employed to instruct each letter sound read as follows. "This is the letter 'c.' 'C' makes the sound in 'cup.' Look at the letter 'c' in this cup. What is the letter? What sound does it make?" The student was asked to look at the integrated picture mnemonic and repeat the information. Prompts were provided, if needed, to facilitate a student response. Fourth, the experimenter concluded by saying, "You said 'c,' 'ck,' 'cup,' when the student repeated the information. This was the only feedback that was provided to subjects following their responses. Finally, at the conclusion of the session subjects were thanked for their hard work. In addition, following a small percentage of sessions (selected randomly), subjects received an edible reinforcer before they returned to their classroom. Each of 20 mnemonic pictures was presented in each intervention session, which lasted for approximately 20 minutes. Intervention and postintervention assessments. Assessments that were administered during daily training sessions and subsequent to the intervention at two-week and four-week delay intervals were identical to those described above for the baseline phase with one exception. One additional question was asked at the conclusion of each assessment during the intervention phase. Students were first instructed to think about what they had practiced with the researcher. Following a short pause, they were then asked how they remembered what sound each letter made. Answers and comments were recorded but no discussions or cues were provided. Also, no response was given when students spontaneously named the mnemonic picture in their response to the letters. Interobserver Reliability Forty-seven percent of the assessment and training sessions were audiotaped and independently coded by the first and second authors and a doctoral student in special education. Reliability data were collected equally across phase and students. Percentage of agreement between observers was obtained by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 0 (Kazdin, 82). Interobserver agreement ranged from 82% to 0% for letterproduction, with a mean agreement of 97%. For sound production, the interobserver agreement ranged from 93% to 0% with a mean agreement of 98%. RESULTS Figure 2 displays the students' responses to letter-sound trials; Figure 3 displays letter recognition trials. The mastery criterion was based on the students' responses to letter-sound questions only. During baseline, Erica's performance yielded a mean of 0 for correct letter-sound responses. Erica reached mastery after sessions of intervention, with a mean of.4 (range 2-20). Dana's performance yielded a mean of 6.8 (6-8) correct responses during her baseline sessions. Mastery was achieved after nine intervention sessions with a mean of 15.1 (range 9 - ). Although Alan did not reach mastery before the project was concluded due to an extended school vacation, he did display a pattern of success. Specifically, during baseline sessions, Alan's responses yielded a mean of (1-2). After intervention sessions, he increased his performance to a mean of 8 (range 1-16), with his final two assessment points at and 16, respectively. All students also displayed increased skills in letter recognition following introduction of the intervention. When asked how they remembered the sound, no student verbally explained the use of the mnemonic strategy. However, shortly after intervention was introduced, all three students spontaneously mentioned specific mnemonic pictures when responding to letter cards. Followup assessments were completed at twoweek and four-week delay intervals following the initial intervention sessions. At the two-week followup session, Erica responded correctly to 20 letter-recognition trials and to letter-sound trials. Dana responded correctly to letterrecognition trials and letter-sound trials. Finally, Alan responded correctly to letterrecognition and letter-sound trials. Two of the three students' responses were equal to the performance they displayed during the final intervention session. At the four-week followup session, Dana answered 20 items correctly in both letter- recognition and letter-sound trials. Erica provided 15 correct responses in letter-recognition and 16 correct responses in letter-sound trials, whereas Alan recognized seven letters and knew corresponding sounds. DISCUSSION This section describes three important findings related to this investigation. First, this research Volume 20, Winter 97 37

B U, 0 a I 0 Baseline Intervention n Followup 20 18 17 0 16 15 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 Erica 3 2 1 O 0 * * * * * 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 15 16 17 18 20 21 20 18 17 16 15 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 Dlna 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 20 21 20 18 17 16 15 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 Alan 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 Sessions Figure 2. Number of correct letter-sound association trials across subjects and phases of the investigation. 38 Learning Disability Quarterly

20 18 17 16 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 Erica 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -- 1 1 15 16 17 18 20 21 20 tz 18 17 8 16 15 Q 11 2 9 lo 8 7 0 6 5 4 Dana E 2 Z 1 0 20 18 17 16 15 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 2a 3 15 16 17 18 20 21 4 r Alan 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 Sessions Figure 3. Number of correct letter recognition of the investigation. trials across subjects and phases Volume 20, Winter 97 39

provides tentative support for the efficacy of integrated picture mnemonics as an effective instructional strategy for teaching letter-sound associations to young students with special needs. Skill improvement occurred sequentially as the intervention was introduced to all students, and two of the three participants met mastery criteria. Even Alan, who had the longest baseline period, did not exhibit any sign of improvement until intervention was introduced. Second, the study found that phonics mnemonics were effective without the time-consuming elements of phonetic segmentation and letter writing as employed by Ehri et al. (84). Third, these young learners maintained high levels of letter-sound skill knowledge at two-week and four-week delay intervals. Skill maintenance is a necessary prerequisite for application and generalization. The next sections discuss the practical implications of these results followed by limitations of the study and suggestions for future research. Implications One plausible explanation for the success of the phonics mnemonics method is the integration of the picture into the form of the letter. A strong link is formed between the visual stimulus and the verbal response (DeLoache & Todd, 88), which appears to add a meaningful connection to information that previously appeared unrelated (Ehri et al., 84). In this instance, use of the mnemonic illustrations enhanced students' ability to retrieve the corresponding letter sound when presented with the visual stimulus of the letter form. Taken together with the results of Ehri et al. (84), these findings lend support to the efficacy of integrated picture mnemonics for improving young students' recall of letter sounds. The present investigation replicates and extends the results of the Ehri et al. (84) study to a new target population, that of young students with special needs in a transitional firstgrade class. The integrated pictures may have been successful because they linked two otherwise unrelated items into one meaningful concept. Earlier research with mnemonics (e.g., Scruggs & Mastropieri, 89) has emphasized the relationship between concreteness, meaningfulness, and learning. Additional methods of providing systematic elaborations between students' prior knowledge and unfamiliar content information are currently receiving some research attention (e.g., Sullivan, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 95) and may provide additional insight into classroom applications of these principles. The greater challenge may be to consider the dimension of meaningfulness when making important curriculum decisions. A second plausible reason for the success of this intervention is that, as Carney et al. (93) suggested, the mnemonic techniques allowed students to transform previously unlearnable material into learnable material by providing an effective strategy. Hurford (90) suggested that the initial inability of young children with reading disabilities to complete phonemic tasks successfully may be due to these students' lack of training in a specific strategy for discrimination tasks. Higher achieving students may develop learning strategies independently, but this is unlikely for students with learning disabilities (Fulk, 94). Without effective and efficient strategies, students with disabilities are less able to compete with their classmates. The positive results of this study may be due to providing the children with a simple and consistent plan for learning. Results of the current study have important implications for classroom practice. Mnemonics have been demonstrated to be effective strategies when presented through individual or group instruction (Hurford, 90; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 90a, 93). Students as well as teachers report that mnemonics are an enjoyable method of learning (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Whittaker, & Bakken, 94). Further, mnemonic instruction has been employed successfully by teachers of elementary and junior-high school students with special needs in classroom settings (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 89; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 90b). This study extends the knowledge base to include young students with special needs in transitional first-grade classes. With the growing numbers of unready students placed in controversial extra-year programs, it seems essential to find instructional strategies that may alleviate early problems with letter-sound association. Limitations and Future Research Although the participants in this study appeared to be aware of the mnemonic strategies, they were unable to verbally explain their use of the strategy when questioned. This awareness was observed when students spontaneously named an integrated mnemonic picture when 40 Learning Disability Quarterly

only a letter was presented. Failure to verbalize strategy usage may be due at least in part to the young age of the students. In addition, students with LD are known to exhibit memory difficulties for language-based information (e.g., Swanson, 87; Vellutino & Scanlon, 82), which may make it difficult for them to fully explain their learning strategies. To further investigate this area, further research could explore the students' awareness and verbalization of mnemonics strategies at different age levels. Future research is also needed to explore additional uses of mnemonic strategies with young students. The present study employed mnemonics as an individually administered rather than a classroom intervention. The efficacy of phonics mnemonics as a classroom intervention for students at-risk for reading failure is a topic for future research. Intuitively, one might question the efficacy of strategy dependent on visual presentations for students with severe visual impairments. However, it is interesting that Alan's visual difficulties did not preclude his success with mnemonic instruction in this individually administered intervention. Additional applications for students with visual impairments merit further investigation. Future research should explore other useful applications of mnemonic strategy instruction within the curriculum of young students. To date, for example, limited information is available on successful transition-grade curriculum and instruction (Mantzicopoulos& Fulk, 95). One limitation of this study is that letter sounds were instructed at the level of individual sounds only. Additional research might investigate students' developmental ability to "blend" several phonemic sounds subsequent to initial sound acquisition. A final limitation of mnemonics as an instructional approach is the difficulty in finding or developing appropriate materials. Commercially developed materials are not available (Scruggs& Mastropieri, 90a). However, simple teacherdeveloped materials have been demonstrated as effective (Mastropieri, Emerick, & Scruggs, 88). The consonant letters and simple objects employed in this investigation may be easier to develop than the mnemonic illustrations required for more complex content. As with any strategy, one must weigh the benefits against the costs and employ formative evaluation to determine the efficacy of the techniques. REFERENCES Carney, R.N., Levin, M.E., & Levin, F.R. (93). Mnemonic strategies. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 24-30. DeLoache, J.S., & Todd, C.M. (88). Young children's use of spatial categorization as a mnemonic strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 46, 1-20. Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (81). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Dunn, L.M., & Markwardt, F.C., Jr. (70). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Ehri, L.C., Deffner, N.D., & Wilce, L.S. (84). Pictorial mnemonics for phonics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 880-893. Felton, R.H. (93). Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological-processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 583-589. Fulk, B.M. (94). Mnemonic keyword strategy training for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 179-185. Hurford, D.P. (90). Training phonemic segmentation ability with a phonemic discrimination intervention in second- and third-grade children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 564-569. Hurford, D.P., & Sanders, R.E. (90). Assessment and remediation of a phonemic discrimination deficit in reading disabled second and fourth graders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 396-415. Hurford, D.P., Darrow, L.J., Edwards, T.L., Howerton, C.J., Mote, C.R., Schauf, J.D., & Coffey, P. (93). An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children during their first-grade year. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 167-177. Kau, A.S., & Winer, G.A. (87). Incidental learning in young children tested with words or words plus pictures as stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 359-366. Kazdin, A.E. (82). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford Press. Mann, V.A. (93). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 259-269. Mantzicopoulos, P.Y., & Fulk, B.M. (95). Readiness rooms: Why are they still around? The Educational Forum, 59, 298-304. Mastropieri, M. A., Emerick, K., & Scruggs, T. E. (88). Mnemonic instruction of science concepts. Behavioral Disorders,, 48-56. Mastropieri, M. A., & Fulk, B. M. (90). Enhancing academic performance with mnemonic instruction. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 2-1). New York: Springer-Verlag. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (87). Reading. Effective instruction in special education (pp. 1-162). Boston: Little-Brown. Volume 20, Winter 97 41

0 Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (89). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 40-46. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Whittaker, M. E. S., & Bakken J. P. (94). Applications of mnemonic strategies with students with mild mental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 34-43. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (82). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61-91. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (89). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 311-327. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (90a). Mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities: What it is and what it does. Learning Disability Quarterly,, 271-280. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (90b). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 2-229. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (93). Special education for the twenty-first century: Integrating learning strategies and thinking skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 392-398. Sullivan, G. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (95). Reasoning and remembering: Coaching students with learning disabilities to think. Journal of Special Education, 29, 3-322. Swanson, H. L. (87). Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (86). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverside. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (82). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 189-254). New York: Springer-Verlag. Wechsler, D. (89). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Association. Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (77). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. Please address all correspondence to: Barbara M. Fulk, Department of Educational Studies, LAEB, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. If you already have the FASTEST and BEST interventions for challenged youth DO NOT READ THIS!! You don't need F R E SAMPLE INTERVENTIONS from the Breakthrough Strategies to Teach and Counsel Youth Workshop Austin Apr. 3-4 Lexington KY Apr. 17-18 ouisville KY Apr. 24-25 Portland OR Apr. -11 Saramento Mar. - Seattle Mar. 20-21 Spokane May 1-2 We've Amassed the World's Best Strategies to Turaround Challenged Kds What Kind of Year Will it Be Without This Workshop? "Best bang for my buck ever!" -Deborah Young, Behvior Specialist, Sacramento (CA) Offce of Education "I haven't learned this much usable information in seven years of higher ed." -Kam Schneder, Teacher, Cinnnatr i School Cincnnati OH "I'm impressed! And I don't impress easily!" -Elda Crisp, Special Ed Teacher, Irvine Elementary, Irvine, KY "Barn! Pow! Hits you right between the eyes with lots of new ideas and approaches." -Patty Boand, Teacher, Napa State Hospital Schl; Napa CA Do not call,1-800-545-5736 a 0 F FREE R SAMPLES E n. \ if you already have the BEST ANSWERS or kids like me The Breakthrough Strategies Series The fastest solutions: 20 lessons in each book, many with handouts. $/book, $1 for the set of all books. Call about our taped and on-site workshops! ',, y FREE Samples * Conference Info * Book Catalog: Youth Change * www.youthchg.com * 1-800-545-5736 42 Learning Disability Quarterly