INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

Intervention: Word-Problem Mnemonic

Alicia Marchini
University of Calgary

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

Intervention: Word-Problem Mnemonic

Summary of Intervention
The use of word-problem mnemonics is an evidence-based intervention
implemented to address Billys difficulty with mathematical problem solving. In addition
to a weakness in math problem solving, Billys poor reading skills would likely increase
his struggle with word problems, as they entail reading and reading comprehension. The
purpose of a word-problem mnemonic is to provide Billy with a structure for solving
word problems (Powell & Hughes, n.d.). It will serve as a reminder for him to follow a
step-by-step framework when working through a word problem, which will assist in his
comprehension of the word-problem (Powell & Hughes, n.d.). For example, the first
letter of each step can form an acronym that is a real word, which is easy to remember.
The effectiveness of mnemonics in mathematical instruction has been supported by
several studies. For instance, the success of mathematical mnemonics was revealed in a
study by Test and Ellis (2005), as well as in a study by Manalo, Bunnell, and Stillman
(2000). The study by Test and Ellis (2005) focused on adding and subtracting fractions,
and it involved teacher modeling, guided practice, individual practice, and pair practice to
consolidate and apply the mnemonic strategy. The results indicated that all students,
except for one with Mental Retardation (i.e., Intellectual Disability) mastered the
mnemonic strategy and performance, and maintained 80 percent or more for up to six
weeks after intervention. Manalo et al. (2000) conducted a different study that included
29 eighth-grade students with a learning disability demonstrated the effectiveness of
process mnemonics for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing numbers with and
without decimals. The students who received process mnemonic instruction showed

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

better performance than those who had the teacher model the process and the opportunity
to imitate, those who had study skill (e.g. note-taking, concentration) instruction, and
those who did not receive instruction. They also had a higher mean performance six
weeks after intervention was terminated. Specific to solving math word problems with
mnemonics, a study by Montague, Enders, and Dietz (2011) demonstrated that averageachieving and low-achieving students, as well as students with learning disabilities, who
received word-problem mnemonic instruction showed greater growth in mathematical
problem solving throughout the school year, in comparison to the students who received
typical classroom instruction as measured by curriculum-based measures (CBMs). The
effectiveness of this intervention was also revealed in results of a study of that used wordproblem mnemonics in preventative tutoring on mathematical problem solving of thirdgrade students with math and reading difficulties.
One mnemonic that can be used to solve nearly all word problems at Billys grade
level should be selected and implemented. Billys resource teacher should use this
mnemonic during word-problem instruction and practice. A word-problem mnemonic that
may be valuable for Billy is RIDE (Read the problem, Identify the relevant information,
Determine the operation and unit for the answer, Enter the correct numbers and calculate,
then check the answer; Powell & Hughes, n.d.).
To implement this intervention, a visual representation of the mnemonic (i.e.,
display the acronym and what each letter represents on a laminated sheet for his
notebook), a performance-tracking log, and practice questions related to the curriculum
are the necessary materials. The opportunity to create line graphs for progress monitoring
on the computer is another requirement for this intervention.

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

Several challenges may arise during the implementation of this intervention. For
instance, Billy may not have an understanding of the mathematical concepts that are
required of him in the word-problem. Therefore, although Billy will be equipped with a
strategy to plan problem solving, he may not have the mathematical knowledge to do so.
However, this intervention can be implemented after Billy has been taught the concepts
on concrete (e.g., with the use of manipulatives), semi-concrete (e.g. visuals), and
abstract (e.g. absence of manipulatives and visuals) levels. Moreover, the resource
teacher may feel that there is not enough time to cover the curriculum material that she
typically reviews and assists Billy with, as well as practice the mnemonic device. This
would interfere with the intervention because the resource teacher may not perform the
intervention as often or as long as necessary. However, this issue can be addressed by
ensuring that the mathematical problems provided to Billy during the intervention session
correspond with the material that Billy is currently learning (Montague et al., 2011). In
this way, the intervention is complimentary, rather than supplementary, to the teachings of
the curriculum.
The chart below outlines the strengths and weaknesses of performing this
particular intervention at school, with the consideration of the specific student involved.
Strengths

Weaknesses

Billyhasadequatememoryabilities,so
he will be able to remember the
mnemonics,whichrequirerotememory
skills

noreadilyavailablemnemonicencodings,
soteachersmustlearnhowtocreatethem,as
well as implement them (be explicit in
instruction)

will assist Billy is mathematical

problemsolving,asitwillprovidehim
with a stepbystep process to solve
problems and it will help him connect
previously learned knowledge to a
specificwordproblem

Billymaynothaveanunderstandingofthe
mathematical concepts that are required of
him in the wordproblem and, therefore,
although Billy will be equipped with a
strategytoplanproblemsolving,hemaynot
havethemathematicalknowledgetodoso

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

Billy wont have to be singled out

because it is an effective strategy for
students at all levels, so the classroom
teacher can teach the whole class
(although Billy will receive onetoone
interventionfromhisresourceteacher)

Intervention Plan
Billys resource teacher must provide the intervention once each week until Billy
has memorized the mnemonic and mastered the appropriate application of it (likely until
June, the end of this school year). Although I will not be involved in the implementation
of the intervention plan, I will be available to contact via telephone or e-mail if Billys
resource teacher has any questions or concerns regarding the intervention,
documentation, or alternative interventions (if this mnemonic device does not improve
his mathematical problem solving abilities).
The students tracking log must note progress in each part of the mnemonic in
order to determine which steps Billy has more difficulty with (see Figure 1). For
example, Billy may master R and I of the mnemonic, but a breakdown in understanding
may occur at D, therefore indicating that he will need further instruction and assistance
with this part of the mnemonic device. Thus, this tracking log must be completed by
Billys resource teacher during or immediately after each intervention session to assist in
the recognition of patterns of error, as well as overall progress monitoring. A score of 6
on the tracking log for four weeks consecutive weeks is Billys goal performance because
there is a limited time left in the school year, placing a restriction on the intervention
time. Thus, a perfect score of 8 would likely require more time and would not be an
attainable goal for this year. Billys current performance has not been determined because

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

the intervention has yet to be instituted. His current performance will be determined using
a math problem solving CBM that his classroom teacher plans to distribute to the entire
class. It is our hope that, throughout the implementation of the intervention plan, Billy
gradually improves his scores on the tracking log with an ambitious growth rate of 1.00
per week (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007), and can maintain a score of 6 by the end of
June 2014. After the first 6 intervention sessions, the resource teacher should use a line
graph (dates on the x-axis, tracking log scores on the y-axis) to visually analyze Billys
progress. In the instance that Billy is not continually progressing, the intervention may
need to be modified (i.e., meet two times per week, change the mnemonic) or a new
intervention may need to be introduced. It is important to note that I will be available for
the resource teacher to contact to share and discuss Billys progress, so that a collective
decision regarding the most suitable way to proceed can be reached.
Figure 1
Underdeveloped
Understanding (i.e.,
cannot
complete
math problems using
this part of the
mnemonic
device
independently
or
correctly; requires
assistance)
SCORE = 0
Read the problem
Identify the relevant
information
Determine
the
operation and unit
for the answer
Enter the correct
numbers
and

Somewhat Developed
Understanding
(i.e.,
sometimes completes
math problems using
this
part
of
the
mnemonic
device
independently
and
correctly, but requires
some assistance)
SCORE = 1

Developed
Understanding (i.e.,
completes
math
problems using this
part of the mnemonic
device independently
and correctly)
SCORE = 2

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

calculate
(Max. Score 8)
Total Score =
To ensure treatment integrity, the resource teacher must:
1. Ensure that she understands the mnemonic device and how to use it (through a
training session with me/the school psychologist) prior to beginning the
intervention.
2. Meet with Billy once per week for half an hour to perform intervention.
3. Reschedule the session for a different time during the week if Billy is not feeling
well or appears to be distracted/distraught (i.e., perhaps after having a
disagreement with a friend or parent or because he does not want to miss gym) to
ensure that Billys focus will more likely be on the intervention lesson.
4. Ensure that new practice questions are used each time to guarantee that Billys
performance is a result of learning progress, rather than familiarity with the
mathematical problem. These should be kept neatly in a binder (organized before
the intervention commences) to avoid repeating previous questions or forgetting
to find new math problems before meeting with the student.
5. Document Billys performance on the tracking log during or immediately after the
intervention session to ensure the accuracy of the ratings.
6. Graph Billys progress on a line graph after the first 6 intervention sessions (dates
on the x-axis, tracking log scores on the y-axis) to determine whether he is getting
closer to his goal performance or, perhaps, we need to adjust the intervention
plan.
The aforementioned list of ways to maintain the integrity of the intervention can be used
as a checklist throughout the implementation of the intervention plan.

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

Documentation
There are multiple, likely barriers to treatment integrity that may interfere with
the intervention. For example, Billy may be absent from school due to family vacation or
illness, in which case it is important to provide more time for the intervention upon his
return to school (i.e., meet twice per week) in order to make up for missed sessions and
continue to progress. Also, Billy may not be open and willing to use the mnemonic
device to assist him in his mathematical problem solving work on a daily basis because
he may not want to feel different from his peers. This can be addressed by requesting that
the classroom teacher integrate the mnemonic device into math lessons. The mnemonic
device can be represented visually and modeled using the SmartBoard or an overhead
projector, so that all students receive instruction on the mnemonic device (Montague et
al., 2011). Moreover, a reward system can be instituted to make the intervention process
more exciting and enticing to Billy (Allsopp, 1999). Furthermore, the resource teacher
may not provide appropriate feedback during intervention sessions, which will interfere
with the intervention plan because Billy will not learn from his mistakes and, therefore,
his progress will remain stagnant. A solution to this would be to emphasize the
importance of guided practice during the intervention to the resource teacher. I can
inform her that specific positive feedback (i.e., letting Billy know what he is doing
correctly to instill confidence in him) and corrective feedback (i.e., letting Billy know
what he is doing incorrectly and modeling the correct response) is crucial during the
initial stage of intervention. I would also note that, once Billy begins to acquire a better
understanding of the use of the mnemonic and shows greater accuracy in his responses,
the resource teachers direct instruction decline, though careful monitoring of Billys

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

success and accuracy must persist (Allsopp, 1999).

As previously noted, progress monitoring on a line graph will be completed after
six sessions (i.e., six weeks) to observe the collected data from the tracking logs that are
completed each week. Any time four consecutive scores fall above the goal line, the goal
must be increased from a score of 6 on the tracking log to a score of 7 or 8 (Hosp et al.,
2007). However, any time four consecutive scores fall below the goal line (i.e., line from
current performance, which has yet to be determined, to goal performance), a decision to
meet the student at a different time of the day (e.g., in the morning) when his attention
span is longer must be made (Hosp et al., 2007). If this does not improve his performance
over the next three sessions (i.e., his scores continue to fall below the goal line), then the
resource teacher will meet Billy twice per week to implement the intervention. Due to the
limited time left in the school year, a final progress-monitoring line graph will be
completed and, in the instance that Billys scores continue to fall below the goal line,
intervention will continue the following school year, though a new intervention will be
determined and implemented at that time (e.g., a new mnemonic device).

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

10

References
Allsopp, D. H. (1999). Using Modeling, Manipulatives, and Mnemonics with EighthGrade Math Students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2), 74-81. Retrieved
from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail?sid=95349
301-78dd-4e9e-92d2-7e8e2cc7ff62%40sessionmgr112&vid=6&hid=112&bd
ata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ597165
Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Fletcher, J. M.
(2008). Effects of Preventative Tutoring on the Mathematical Problem Solving of
Third-Grade Students with Math and Reading Difficulties. Exceptional Children,
74(2), 155-173. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.uca
lgary.ca/pdf19_22/pdf/2008/EXC/01Jan08/28095256.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=2809
5256&S=R&D=ehh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSep7c4y9fwOLCmr0yep7VS
r6u4SLaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGut0%2BzrrFIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide
to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
Manalo, E., Bunnell, J. K., & Stillman, J. A. (2000). The Use of Process Mnemonics in
Teaching Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23(2), 137-156. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.li
b.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail?sid=08e98331-351b-457f-b991-28436487d52f%40
sessionmgr111&vid=8&hid=112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d
#db=eric&AN=EJ608063
Montague, M., Enders, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). Effects of Cognitive Strategy Instruction
on Math Problem Solving of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities.

INTERVENTION: WORD-PROBLEM MNEMONIC

11

Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 262-272. doi:10.1177/0731948711421762

Powell, S. R., & Hughes, E. M. (n.d.). Intervention Name: Word-Problem Mnemonics.
Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Retrieved from
http://ebi.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EBI-Brief-Template-WordProblem-Mnemonics.pdf
Test, D. W., & Ellis, M. F. (2005). The Effects of LAP Fractions on Addition and
Subtraction of Fractions with Students with Mild Disabilities. Education and
Treatment of Children, 28(1), 11-24. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.co
m.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/pdf9/pdf/2005/EDM/01Feb05/16636657.pdf?T=P&P=
AN&K=16636657&S=R&D=pbh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSep7c4y9fwOL
Cmr0yep7RSr6e4SrKWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGut0%2BzrrFIuePfg
eyx44Dt6fIA