Christine B. McCormick

Mnemonic Versus Nonmnemonic Vocabulary-learning Strategies for Children

Fourth-grade students learned a list of relatively complex English vocabulary words in two experiments. In Experiment 1, pupils used either a mnemonic (“keyword”) contextual or a verbal contextual procedure. In Experiment 2, three other conditions were compared to the keyword context condition. They included a no-strategy control condition and two other contextual variations: (a) an experiential context condition that had been used previously, and (b) a nonkeyword pictorial context condition. In both experiments, the keyword method proved effective for enhancing children’s acquisition of new vocabulary words. Moreover, in the second experiment, neither of the two nonkeyword contextual variations improved students’ performance.

Memory Strategy Instruction with Children

The number of studies of memory development conducted during the past 15 years is overwhelming. The vast majority of these studies have been concerned with plotting out developmental changes in the process learners naturally use to memorize; such studies have been the focus of most previous reviews of memory development (e.g., Kail & Hagen, 1977). However, children can execute many more strategies than the ones they use on their own. Much less attention has been paid to children’s strategy usage under instruction, despite the existence of exemplary research programs on strategy instruction (e.g., Levin, 1976; Rohwer, 1973) and the existence of a thorough analysis of the unique contribution of the strategy instructional approach to memory development (Belmont & Butterfield, 1977). The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of what is known about memory strategy usage under instruction.

Learning via mnemonic pictures: Analysis of the presidential process

In three experiments, junior high school students learned the numerical order of 14 U.S. presidents according to either a complex mnemonic strategy or their own techniques. Reliable performancepattern differences between the two groups were detected, both in the presence and absence of overall level-of-recall differences. Chief among the pattern differences were the classic serial-position profiles produced by control subjects, but not by those using mnemonic strategies, and the slower response times (suggesting a more complex retrieval process) of subjects using mnemonic strategies.

A Comparison of Different Prose-Learning Variations of the Mnemonic Keyword Method:

Seventh- and eighth-grade students were presented fictitious biographies to remember. Keyword students were instructed to use a prose-learning adaptation of the mnemonic keyword method, and control students were left to their own devices. In the initial experiment, each of three variations of the keyword method, differing in terms of the manner in which the mnemonic images were organized, resulted in significantly higher levels of recall than did control instructions. Moreover, the keyword groups could be distinguished from the controls, as well as from one another, on the basis of qualitative differences in their recall patterns. In a subsequent experiment, the basic findings were replicated using both immediate and delayed recognition tests.

Mnemonic Prose-Learning Strategies

The impressive number and quality of chapters represented by this volume testifies both to the usefulness of mnemonic techniques and to the importance of conducting controlled research that continues to probe their “workings.” From a theoretical standpoint, one can strive to account for the mechanisms associated with the operation of mnemonic strategies, which in turn will permit precise specifications of the conditions related to their effectiveness (see, for example, Bellezza, Chapter 2, this volume; Desrochers & Begg, Chapter 3, this volume). From an applied educational standpoint, one can strive to design and prescribe different varieties of mnemonic strategies for different varieties of classroom curricula and students (e.g., Levin, 1985; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Levin, Chapter 16, this volume).

A combined pictorial mnemonic strategy for ordered information

Joel R. Levin is professor of educational psychology and principal investigator, Wisconsin Research and Development Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. Christine B. McCormick is assistant professor of psychology at Illinois State University, Normal IL 61761. Beverly J. Dretzke is a research assistant and doctoral candidate with the department of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. This research was funded by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling, supported in part as a research and development center by funds from the National Institute of Education (Center Grant No. OB-NIEG-78-0217). The opinions herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Institute of Education, and no official endorsement by the Institute should be inferred. We are grateful to the staff and students of Van Hise Middle School in Madison, Wisconsin, for their cooperation. We also wish to acknowledge the substantive contributions to this research by Jill Berry, Victor Levy, Gloria Miller, Kurt Steuck, and, especially, Linda Shriberg; the masterful illustrations of Robert Cavey; and the typing of the manuscript by Lynn Sowle. Requests for reprints should be sent to Joel R. Levin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706.

Mnemonic-Strategy Reduction of Prose-Learning Interference.

One hundred and sixty college students read three fictitious biographical passages according to either imagery-mnemonic or no-strategy control instructions. In one mnemonic condition, subjects formed separate images involving each biographical name and its associated facts: in another mnemonic condition, the biographical name and its associated facts were integrated within a single composite image. Relative to an interference-control condition, integrated mnemonic subjects recalled more factual information, whereas separate mnemonic subjects did not. In addition, the recall of integrated mnemonic subjects was statistically no different from that of a noninterference control condition, whereas the recall of separate mnemonic subjects was lower. Both theoretical and educational implications of the results are discussed.