http://top.sagepub.com/Teaching of Psychology

http://top.sagepub.com/content/38/4/247The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0098628311421321

2011 38: 247Teaching of PsychologyDaniel R. Stalder and Elizabeth A. Olson

for Two: Using Mnemonics to Teach Statisticst  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Society for the Teaching of Psychology

can be found at:Teaching of PsychologyAdditional services and information for    

  http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Oct 6, 2011Version of Record >>

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Faculty Forum

t for Two: Using Mnemonics toTeach Statistics

Daniel R. Stalder1 and Elizabeth A. Olson1

AbstractThis article provides a list of statistical mnemonics for instructor use. This article also reports on the potential for suchmnemonics to help students learn, enjoy, and become less apprehensive about statistics. Undergraduates from two sections of apsychology statistics course rated 8 of 11 mnemonics as significantly memorable and helpful in learning statistics. Undergraduatesrated the 3 remaining mnemonics as helpful after excluding students who did not recall those mnemonics (beyond scale midpoint).Other measures indicated a relatively high regard for the overall use of statistical mnemonics. In particular, mnemonics were ratedas motivating and fun. Students also reported moderate belief that mnemonics could reduce statistics anxiety. The variety ofpositive findings suggests strong promise for statistical mnemonics.

Keywordsmnemonics, statistics anxiety, statistics education

Statistics is one of the most anxiety-producing subjects for

college students, including social science majors (e.g., Kher,

Molstad, & Donahue, 1999; Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003).

In fact, interest in psychology negatively correlates with inter-

est in math (Stalder, 2002). Finding ways to make statistics

material more accessible seems especially important for psy-

chology majors who need statistics to succeed in the research

methods course, to conduct independent research, and to

understand research articles.

Because statistics and research methods are often core

courses in the undergraduate social science curriculum

(Perlman & McCann, 2005), improving students’ relationship

with statistics is a critical first step in improving student

engagement across the curriculum. Among helpful learning

methods, mnemonics have received support for statistics,

research methods, and other material (e.g., Carney & Levin,

2008; Higbee, 1996; Lakin, Giesler, Morris, & Vosmik,

2007; Saber & Johnson, 2008; Stalder, 2005; VanVoorhis,

2002). Unlike other effective strategies in statistics and

research methods which require considerable instructor

effort (Dunn, Smith, & Beins, 2007), most mnemonics are

easily added to existing material. The research-based

benefit of mnemonics weighed against this low cost strongly

suggests trying mnemonics. To this end, we provide a list of

statistical mnemonics, including first-letter mnemonics

(e.g., t tests compare two groups; Stalder, 2005) and those

involving the keyword method (Carney & Levin, 2008). We

also report student ratings on the degree to which such mne-

monics might help students learn, enjoy, and feel less anxiety

over material.

Method

Sixty-one undergraduates (17 men, 44 women; age M ¼ 22.2,

SD ¼ 4.8) completed anonymous semester-end surveys for

extra credit from two sections of an introductory psychology

statistics course at a Midwestern university. The surveys

reviewed 11 mnemonics provided during the semester (see

Table 1) and asked four questions about each (1 ¼ not at all,

7 ¼ a great degree): ‘‘To what degree’’ (a) ‘‘was this mnemo-

nic helpful in learning this information,’’ (b) ‘‘did this mnemo-

nic make learning this information easier or faster,’’ (c) ‘‘did

this mnemonic make the information easier to recall during

homework or tests,’’ and (d) ‘‘do you recall this mnemonic

from the semester?’’ We averaged the first three items to create

one perceived helpfulness measure for each mnemonic (as ran-

ged from .87 to .98). Then, participants answered 11 questions

about their overall perceptions of mnemonics (1 ¼ not at all, 7

¼ a great degree) (see Table 2). Nine of these questions

assessed the perceived value of mnemonics, including the

degree to which mnemonics increased learning, motivation,

and fun, should be used by other instructors, and helped to

reduce statistics anxiety. Two other items assessed use of mne-

monics by other instructors.

1 University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA

Corresponding Author:

Daniel R. Stalder, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–

Whitewater, 800 W. Main Street, Whitewater, WI 53190-1790.

Email: stalderd@uww.edu

Teaching of Psychology38(4) 247-250ª The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0098628311421321http://top.sagepub.com

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Results

For each measure, we compared mean student scores against

scale midpoints using one-sample t tests. Participants signifi-

cantly recalled 8 of the 11 mnemonics and rated those same

mnemonics as significantly helpful using the three-item help-

fulness measure (see Table 1). Considering participants who

recalled the 3 remaining mnemonics above the scale midpoint

(approximately half the sample), perceived helpfulness ratings

significantly (or marginally) exceeded the scale midpoint (ps <

.01; p ¼ .079 for the ANOVA mnemonic).

Overall perceptions of mnemonics indicated relatively

high regard (see Table 2). In particular, participants generally

reported that mnemonics improved learning and motivation

(including motivation to create their own mnemonics), made

the material more fun, and should be provided more by other

instructors. Ratings of mnemonic use by other instructors were

relatively low. The mean rating of 4.0 for how much the

mnemonics reduced statistics anxiety did not exceed the scale

midpoint. However, given the prevalence and degree of statis-

tics anxiety (e.g., Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003), a comparison

Table 1. Mean and Median Scores (and Standard Deviations) for Recall and Perceived Helpfulness of Mnemonics

Degree Recalled Perceived Helpfulness

Mnemonics M Mdn (SD) M Mdn (SD) Z2

1. The ‘‘t’’ in ‘‘t test’’ stands for ‘‘two,’’ and t testscompare two groups (including one sample andone population).

6.4*** 7.0 (1.1) 6.3*** 6.7 (0.8) .90

2. The ‘‘F’’ in ‘‘F test’’ stands for a ‘‘few,’’ ‘‘four’’ or‘‘five,’’ and F tests compare three or more groups.

6.5*** 7.0 (0.7) 6.3*** 6.7 (0.7) .91

3. The ‘‘r’’ in r tests stands for ‘‘relationship,’’ and rtests (or correlations) measure the relationshipbetween variables.

5.7*** 6.0 (1.5) 5.8*** 6.0 (1.1) .71

4. ‘‘P’’ stands for ‘‘parameters’’ and ‘‘population,’’ andparameters refer to the population; similarly, ‘‘s’’stands for ‘‘statistics’’ and ‘‘sample,’’ and statisticsrefer to a sample.

4.5* 5.0 (1.5) 4.9*** 5.0 (1.5) .29

5. To remember the four types of scales, think ofstereotypical statisticians wearing glasses andshirts with wrinkles, and there may be a humor-ous sign on the wall in the lab saying, ‘‘NO IRoningallowed’’ (N ¼ __, O ¼ __, I ¼ __, R ¼ __).

4.7** 5.0 (1.9) 4.8*** 5.0 (1.6) .21

6. ‘‘O’’ stands for ‘‘ordinal’’ and ‘‘Olympics’’; theordinal scale is used in the Olympics.

5.6*** 6.0 (1.5) 5.9*** 6.0 (1.3) .69

7. To help with Step 6 in hypothesis testing (i.e., thatwe want tcomp and Fcomp to be as big as possible,to reject H0), think of a huge computer screen,like those big-screen TVs at Best Buy . . . )

5.1*** 5.0 (1.7) 4.6* 5.0 (1.8) .10

8. To remember that the F test in Ch.11 is alsoknown as an ANOVA (analysis of variance), thinkof a supernova (an exploding star) and how thereare many, many stars, like the many, many groupsan ANOVA can statistically compare.

4.2 4.0 (1.9) 3.8 4.0 (1.6) .02

9. To remember that dfb (e.g., 2) comes before dfw(e.g., 18) in parentheses when writing out the Freport, such as F(2, 18) ¼ 6.62, p < .05, usealphabetical order: b comes before w in thealphabet.

5.4*** 6.0 (1.8) 5.5*** 6.0 (1.5) .52

10. To remember the formula for the ‘‘mean,’’ thinkabout a mean group/sum of foXes pouncing on a

Newt [animal illustration also provided]:

PfX

N

4.3 4.0 (1.9) 4.1 4.7 (1.8) .00

11. To remember which column to use, column B orC, in the z table (to find an area between 0 andyour z score or an area beyond your z score),notice that B stands for between and C stands forcorner (of the graph).

4.2 5.0 (2.1) 4.5 5.0 (2.1) .05

Note. Means and medians can range from 1 to 7. Higher scores represent greater degree recalled or perceived helpfulness. Means that were significantly higherthan the midpoint of the scale (4.0) using a one-sample t test are indicated by the p value superscripts; the effect size column pertains to perceived helpfulness ts.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

248 Teaching of Psychology 38(4)

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

point on the scale below the midpoint might be more appropri-

ate as the estimate of the population mean for statistics students

who did not receive the mnemonics. Comparing the mean rating

of 4.0 against even a 3.5 yielded a significant difference, t(60) ¼2.24, p < .03, Z2 ¼ .08. Considering only the students who

recalled (above scale midpoint) all of the eight highly rated mne-

monics (n ¼ 16) or all of the three remaining mnemonics (n ¼11), anxiety-reduction ratings (Ms ¼ 5.1 and 5.2, respectively)

did significantly exceed the 4.0 midpoint (ps < .01).

Discussion

Based on multiple measures, students reported significant

regard for most of the specific mnemonics and for mnemonics

in general in learning statistics. In particular, students thought

that mnemonics increased learning, motivation, and fun and

should be provided more by other instructors. Having fun seems

particularly important to address statistics anxiety (e.g., Lomax

& Moosavi, 2002). Students also reported moderate belief that

the provided mnemonics reduced anxiety. Such beliefs strength-

ened among students who better recalled the mnemonics, possi-

bly lending some validity to such beliefs. Given the prevalence

and degree of statistics anxiety (e.g., Onwuegbuzie & Wilson,

2003), a tool that receives even a mid-scale overall rating for

reducing anxiety seems worth trying. Students also reported that

other instructors, including math and statistics instructors, use

mnemonics infrequently. These results might suggest that mne-

monics are a relatively untapped resource in current post-

secondary education (see also Stalder, 2005). Carney and Levin

(2008) suggested that part of this low instructor use might be due

to instructors’ misconceptions about mnemonics, which Carney

and Levin hoped their research could address.

As a limitation, the design was nonexperimental and did

not demonstrate actual improvements in performance due

to mnemonics. Other research has provided such evidence for

statistics, research methods, and other material (e.g., Carney

& Levin, 2008; Higbee, 1996; Lakin et al., 2007; Saber &

Johnson, 2008; Stalder, 2005; VanVoorhis, 2002), but we did

not collect such data in the current work. Feelings of motiva-

tion and fun probably need to be self-reported in any case and

might play a vital role in reducing statistics anxiety, which

would improve performance (Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003).

Among benefits of the current design, the real-life classroom

context breeds greater validity and generalizability of results,

particularly because of the statistics anxiety that might spike

during an actual statistics class. Moreover, the effect sizes for

many of the students’ positive impressions were quite large

(see Tables 1 and 2), in some cases over three times the conven-

tional ‘‘large’’ effect size (Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 2004).

Taking into account that statistics students are usually not very

upbeat about the course, sometimes delaying their enrollment

(Kher et al., 1999; Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003) with poten-

tial negative consequences (Freng, Webber, Blatter, Wing, &

Scott, in press), such large effects become even more meaning-

ful. As recommended by Vacha-Haase and Thompson (2004)

in evaluating the meaning of effect sizes, we compared present

effect sizes with those of similar self-report measures in previ-

ous studies (e.g., Lakin et al., 2007; Stalder, 2005) and found

present effect sizes to be much larger.

In sum, the variety and size of positive findings suggest

strong potential for mnemonics to improve statistics learning

and provide even clearer evidence for improving the overall

(subjective) statistics course experience. Nearly all of the 11

mnemonics (Numbers 1-10 in Table 1) also cover material nec-

essary to know for the research methods course that usually

directly follows introductory statistics in the social science

major. Whatever the cause of the apparent low instructor use

of mnemonics, we believe that most of the mnemonics pro-

vided in this article can be easily integrated into statistics and

research methods courses and will prove useful to instructors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Table 2. Mean and Median Scores and Standard Deviations for Overall Perceptions of Mnemonics

Perception Measure M Mdn SD Z2

Perceived helpfulness in . . .learning and retaining material 5.8*** 6.0 1.0 .79improving course performance 5.4*** 6.0 1.1 .62getting motivated to start studying 4.6** 5.0 1.5 .12making the material more fun to learn 4.7*** 5.0 1.6 .18

Actual use of the mnemonics during the semester 5.4*** 5.0 1.2 .59Recalled use by other college instructors 2.9*** 2.0 1.6 .34Recalled use by other math or statistics instructors 2.6*** 2.0 1.6 .44View on whether . . .

other math or statistics instructors should provide mnemonics 6.0*** 6.0 1.2 .73other students should use mnemonics 6.1*** 6.0 1.3 .72participants themselves would now create their own mnemonics 5.6*** 6.0 1.5 .55the mnemonics helped to reduce statistics anxiety 4.0 4.0 1.6 .00

Note. Means and medians can range from 1 to 7. Higher scores represent greater degree. Means that were significantly different than the midpoint of the scale (4.0)using a one-sample t test are indicated by the p value superscripts; the effect size column pertains to these t scores.**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Stalder and Olson 249

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Isabel Davis and Kyle Anderson for their valuable

assistance.

References

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2008). Conquering mnemonophobia,

with help from three practical measures of memory and applica-

tion. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 176-183.

Dunn, D. S., Smith, R. A., & Beins, B. C. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices

for teaching statistics and research methods in behavioral sciences.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freng, S., Webber, D., Blatter, J., Wing, A., & Scott, W. D. (in press).

The role of statistics and research methods in the academic success

of psychology majors: Do performance and enrollment timing mat-

ter? Teaching of Psychology.

Higbee, K. L. (1996). Your memory: How it works and how to improve

it (2nd ed.). New York: Marlowe.

Kher, N., Molstad, S., & Donahue, R. (1999). Using humor in the college

classroom to enhance teaching effectiveness in ‘‘dread courses.’’

College Student Journal, 33, 400-406.

Lakin, J. L., Giesler, R. B., Morris, K. A., & Vosmik, J. R. (2007).

HOMER as an acronym for the scientific method. Teaching of

Psychology, 34, 94-96.

Lomax, R. G., & Moosavi, S. A. (2002). Using humor to teach statistics:

Must they be orthogonal? Understanding Statistics, 1, 113-130.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Wilson, V. A. (2003). Statistics anxiety:

Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatments—A com-

prehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education,

8, 195-209.

Perlman, B., & McCann, L. I. (2005). Undergraduate research experi-

ences in psychology: A national study of courses and curricula.

Teaching of Psychology, 32, 5-14.

Saber, J. L., & Johnson, R. D. (2008). Don’t throw out the baby with

the bathwater: Verbal repetition, mnemonics, and active learning.

Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 207-216.

Stalder, D. R. (2002). Mathematicians, attributional complexity, and

gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engi-

neering, 8, 149-159.

Stalder, D. R. (2005). Learning and motivational benefits of acro-

nym use in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology,

32, 222-228.

Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2004). How to estimate and

interpret various effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

51, 473-481.

VanVoorhis, C. R. W. (2002). Stat jingles: To sing or not to sing.

Teaching of Psychology, 29, 249-250.

250 Teaching of Psychology 38(4)

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 1, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from