IRISH

Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics and Computer-Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with Learning and Cognitive Disabilities: 

Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics and Computer-Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with Learning and Cognitive Disabilities By Cheryl Irish Cedarville University

The effect of mnemonics on basic fact fluency in multiplication: 

The effect of mnemonics on basic fact fluency in multiplication Why mnemonics? Research by Mastropieri & Scruggs (1999), Greene (1999), Manalo, Bunnell, & Stillman (2000) supports mnemonics as a viable intervention for students with mild disabilities Meta-analysis by Swanson (1999); Swanson & Hoskyn (1998) indicates mnemonics is an effective strategy

Slide3: 

Why strategies instruction? Strategies instruction has been shown to be beneficial to student learning (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999) Strategies instruction, especially mnemonics, may provide a “semantic bridge” to math facts that results in increased acquisition, storage, and retrieval of basic facts.

Slide4: 

Why fact accuracy? NCTM (2000) set standard that all students in elementary grades (and higher) should have ability to compute accurately Recent study (Foegen & Deno, 2001) indicates fluency is a reliable & valid indicator of student performance and growth in mathematics

Slide5: 

Why students with LD and CD? Many students with LD and CD do not achieve accuracy and fluency in basic facts and this deficit hampers math achievement in higher grades (Jitendra, Salmento,& Haydt, 1999) and interferes with their ability to solve more complex math problems (Manalo et al., 2001)

Slide6: 

Why Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)? NCTM (2000)has encouraged the use of technology in math classrooms Meta-analysis by Swanson (1999), and another by Swanson & Hoskyn (1998) indicated that CAI is an effective intervention for students with special educational needs CAI has many benefits for students with mild disabilities (i.e., corrective feedback, many levels & explicit examples, practice opportunities)

Purpose & Significance of the Study: 

Purpose & Significance of the Study Purpose: Evaluate “Memory Math,” a computer program designed to teach students to use a mnemonic strategy to acquire, store, and retrieve basic multiplication facts Significance: Mnemonic strategies have rarely been used with math content (generally used with semantic information)

Slide8: 

CAI has rarely been used to teach students a strategy for learning basic facts “Mathematical thinking,” a skill highlighted by NCTM may be dependent upon firm background knowledge in basic skills Because of the diversity of learning deficits and patterns of strengths and weaknesses, students with special needs require a variety of strategies

Research Question One: 

Research Question One To what extent did the implementation and use of Memory Math supplemented with regular class review result in changes in the accuracy of students with learning and cognitive disabilities on basic multiplication facts (twos through nines)?

Research Question Two: 

Research Question Two To what extent did the implementation and use of Memory Math instruction supplemented with regular class review generalize to student accuracy on paper/pencil tasks of basic multiplication facts (2s through 9s)?

Experimental Design: 

Experimental Design Multiple Baseline Across Students Assessed basic multiplication performance across students Evaluated the effect of Memory Math on each students’ multiplication performance (functional relationship) Replicated the study six times (six classrooms, five schools) Conducted maintenance and follow-up measures

Significance of the Research Design: 

Significance of the Research Design Does not require a return to baseline condition in order to demonstrate experimental control Permits the measurement of an independent variable across subjects Permits the analyst the opportunity to understand the relationship of the independent variable on behaviors across students Relatively simple to conceptualize (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987)

Functional Relationship: 

Functional Relationship Prediction Demonstration of the fact that without intervention, the students’ performance would have continued as in the baseline phase Verification Confirmation of treatment effectiveness demonstrated through consistent changes in performance after the application of treatment (and when no changes occur for those in baseline) Replication Provision of robustness or power of functional relationship between variables by consistent demonstration of treatment effectiveness

Treatment Control: 

Treatment Control The demonstration that the behavior would have remained unchanged without the treatment Stability Horizontal trend in the baseline data “Similar level of responding across several sessions” (McCormick, 1995) At least three data points in each phase Number of Baselines At least 3 baselines are suggested; 6 were included

Experimental Control: 

Experimental Control Strong experimental control is shown when the level and rapidity of change for multiple subjects are the same across phases Replication (the number of replications is important – the literature suggests at least 3) Six replications made in the current study Overlap(the number of overlapping data points is significant – there must be at least 3) At least 3 data points of overlap occurred in every phase

Data Collection: 

Data Collection Data were collected for 18 weeks Several types of data were collected Quantitative Accuracy (% correct) on electronic quizzes Accuracy (% correct) on paper/pencil quizzes Qualitative Interviews with students and teachers Observations (field notes)

Quantitative: 

Quantitative Accuracy data Collected and graphed each week Visually analyzed then used to determine study phases Reliability Computer scoring checked with hand scoring Electronic quizzes compared with paper/pencil quizzes

Qualitative: 

Qualitative Interviews Teachers & students were interviewed Regular discussions were held with teachers during weekly observation visits One audio-taped interview with each teacher Data was coded according to response type Patterns were established (themes) Triangulation provided reliability

Treatment Integrity: 

Treatment Integrity Training sessions were held prior to the beginning of the study Individual training just prior to study initiation Criteria for treatment were established and communicated with the teachers and then checked on a weekly basis Two-three weekly electronic quizzes One-two weekly paper/pencil quizzes Data was shared with teachers each week

Results: Accuracy: 

Results: Accuracy Electronic All students increased accuracy on the electronic quiz (mean scores during treatment) Students 1,3,4,5,6 increased performance on a consistent basis during intervention Students 1,3,4,6 increased performance through maintenance and follow-up conditions Students 1,3,4,6 demonstrated increases indicative of mastery levels of performance (>85%)

Results: Accuracy: 

Results: Accuracy Paper/Pencil Every student demonstrated increased performance during treatment Every student maintained gains Student 2 demonstrated a greater increase during intervention on the paper/pencil tasks Students 2,4,5 demonstrated greater increases in maintenance performance on paper/pencil tasks

Results: Generalization: 

Results: Generalization From electronic to paper/pencil The electronic gains generalized to the paper/pencil tasks Use of the strategy generalized from computer to paper/pencil Electronic instruction generalized to clinically relevant gains on typical classroom math tasks

Results: Teacher Ratings: 

Results: Teacher Ratings The teachers found Memory Math to be a viable addition to effective classroom math “tools” The electronic instruction relieved teachers of time intensive drill and practice tasks The teachers were willing to continue to use Memory Math – in fact, felt it had not been used to its fullest in this study (especially Teachers 3,5,6) The Memory Math mode of presentation was effective with these students Students were independent in their use of the strategy

Limitations of the Study: 

Limitations of the Study The population studied in this experiment is not representative of all students with LD & CD The response tasks were not identical Electronic quiz was a recognition task Paper/pencil quiz was a recall task Final answers on the electronic quiz could not be revisited – paper/pencil answers could be changed No way to quantify teacher responses to interview questions One teacher was encouraged to volunteer

Implications for Intervention: 

Implications for Intervention Mnemonic strategies were an effective tool for teaching students basic multiplication facts Computer-assisted instruction may be a viable option for delivery of strategy instruction to teach students mnemonics for basic multiplication facts The longer the treatment, the greater the gains The more sessions per week the greater the level and rapidity of change

Future Research: 

Future Research Studies to determine the long-term effects of mnemonic strategy use with basic facts are necessary. Follow-up studies to determine the maintenance and generalization effects of Memory Math are needed. A greater understanding of the interaction of time spent in the program and increased accuracy is required. A greater understanding of the characteristics/necessity of classroom review would be helpful .