Transfer of imagery-based mnemonics by adult learners

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11, 156 160 (1986)

Transfer of Imagery-Based Mnemonics by Adult Learners

MICHAEL PRESSLEY AND MAIIEEN AHMAD University of Western Ontur-io

Are there ways short of direct instruction in a mnemonic technique to induce use of that strategy, for example, the keyword method? For one, exposure to a related mnemonic might stimulate keyword use even without direct instruction in the keyword technique. Thus, in this experiment some subjects were exposed to the one- is-a-bun pegword procedure before they performed a task that is suited to the keyword technique (i.e., learning vocabulary). A second possibility is that people might possess elaborative mnemonic strategies but fail to recognize their applicability. To investigate this possibility, some subjects were given the vague cue to use “association, imagery, and mnemonics,” to learn vocabulary. The most important result was that exposure to the one-is-a-bun pegword mnemonic produced use of the keyword strategy on the vocabulary task. The effects of hinting were generally positive, but not as pronounced as the effects produced by exposure to the pegword technique. The results clarify the nature of elaborative production deficiencies and increase understanding of the effects of exposure to particular mnemonics, suggesting that instruction in specific mnemonics leads to use of related procedures in situations other than the original training task (i.e.. transfer). c 1~x6

Academic Preaa, Inc.

A flurry of research on mnemonic-assisted instruction occurred in the last decade, work reviewed in detail by Pressley, Levin, and Delaney (1982), Bellezza (1983), and Paivio and Desrochers (1982). Much of the research focused on a particular mnemonic approach, the keyword method (e.g., Atkinson, 1975). The keyword technique is useful for learning both foreign and first-language vocabulary. The method involves recoding the to-be-learned vocabulary items to acoustically similar proxies and creating an interactive image or verbal relationship containing the proxy and the definition. For instance, to learn that the rare English word car/in means an old woman, recode carlin as the more fa- miliar word cur, that sounds like the first syllable of curlin, and imagine an old woman driving a car.

The most commonly reported result in keyword research is that complete instruction to use the technique produces learning superior to that of uninstructed control subjects, largely because only a minority of controls use powerful keyword mnemonics without instruction, and then not

This research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Address reprint requests to author Pressley. De- partment of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A SC2 Canada.

150 036 I -476X186 $3 .OO CopyrIght ‘i 1986 by Academtc Pres\. Inc. All r,aht\ of reoroduct,on ,n anv form re,erved.

IMAGERY-BASED MNEMONICS 151

extensively (Pressley, 1982; Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982; e.g., Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, & Michener, 1982). Little attention has been paid, however, to the related question of whether complete keyword method instruction is necessary to increase use of elaboration above the level of uninstructed controls. Such work is relevant to several general issues of strategy deployment.

Exposure to one type of mnemonic might stimulate subsequent use of a related strategy. That is, once people are exposed to one type of mnemonic, they might transfer the mnemonic approach to learning. This possibility is suggested by the following anecdotal evidence. Pressley, Levin, Digdon, Bryant, and Ray (1983) conducted a study in fall 1981 using an introductory psychology subject pool. Students taught the keyword method used the technique more extensively and recalled a substantially greater number of vocabulary than control learners. As part of a pilot study, Pressley performed another keyword-control manipulation in spring 1982. The subjects came from the same subject pool, except they were now in their second semester of introductory psychology. There were no differences between keyword and control performances during the spring testing, with most subjects in both conditions using the keyword method to learn most of the vocabulary words.

Why the difference in spring and autumn results? Why substantial use of mnemonics by spring control subjects when low strategy use is the norm among uninstructed adults? The spring participants reported that they were impressed by the potency of interactive imagery in an exercise during the second semester of their introductory psychology course (Katz & Newby, 1980, chap. 6). The demonstration featured most promi- nently the “one-is-a-bun” pegword method, Subjects were taught the poem “One is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree, etc,” and were taught to use the poem to learn lists of ordered items. This is accomplished by creating mental images of the first item on a list in interaction with a bun, the second in interaction with a shoe, the third with a tree, etc. It is emphasized that there was no mention during the demonstration of the mnemonic keyword method.

The transfer that occurred with the spring control subjects was intri- guing because even very close generalization of strategies often fails to transpire (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980). Moreover, there is little understanding of the factors that contribute to “spontaneous” use of elaborative mnemonics, like the keyword method (cf. Rohwer, 1973; Rohwer, Rabinowitz, & Dronkers, 1982). In order to understand how use of mnemonics may transfer, resulting in learners who appear to use mnemonic strategies “spontaneously” (i.e., they use them without specific instruction to do so), we tested the hypothesis that exposure to pegword mnemonics can produce more general mnemonics deployment, specifically

152 PRESSLEY AND AHMAD

use of the keyword method. Thus, pegword experience subjects were taught and practiced the one-is-a-bun mnemonic. and then learned vocabulary. We reasoned that if transfer from pegword to keyword did not occur with this setup (i.e., learning tasks following one right after the other, presented in the same setting by the same experimenter). it would be unlikely given any other arrangement. See Pressley and Dennis- Rounds (1980) for additional discussion of this approach to initial research on transfer problems.

One other method of inducing keyword method use short of direct instruction was explored in this experiment as well. People sometimes possess cognitive skills, but simply fail to recognize the applicability of the skill to a particular learning situation. In the specific case considered here, uninstructed adults might possess well-developed mnemonic and interactive imagery strategies (cf. Rohwer & Litrownik. 1983), but fail to produce them (i.e., they are production deficient with respect to these strategies: Flavell, 1970). If so, providing a hint to use mnemonics could transform them from nonproducers to users (Brown & Campione. 1984: Crisafi & Brown, 1983; Gick & Holyoak. 1980. 1983; Ross. 1984; Schank, 1982). Thus. subjects in one condition of this experiment were provided only the general hint “to use association. imagery. and/or mnemonics“ when they were given the vocabulary task, with the hypothesis that providing such hints might be sufficient to induce use of the keyword method. Including one more condition. a hint + pegword experience condition. permitted a test of the possibility that even if learners did not spontaneously transfer the interactive imagery approach to associative learning following instruction in the one-is-a-bun method, they might do so given prompting in the form of the hint.

Hint, pegword experience, and hint + pegword experience conditions were evaluated against three other conditions. One was a no strategy control condition and the other two were instructional treatments, one believed to maximize elaborative strategy use, the other to minimize it. The upper performance limit should have been in the condition in which complete keyword instructions were provided to learners (cf. O’Sullivan & Pressley, 1984; Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980). The rehearsal control condition was included to provide information about achievement and strategy use when elaboration is impeded (i.e., rote rehearsal is known to be antagonistic to elaboration, Rohwer & Bean, 1973).

Subjects

METHOD

One hundred twenty undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology at the Univer- sity of Western Ontario served as participants in the experiment (age range = 17-34 years: mean ape = 19.6 year\). Twenty subjects were randomly assigned to each of the six condi-


tions of the experiment. Although there were more females than males in the study (70.8% females in the sample), this was not considered to be an important factor, since there are no known sex differences among university-age learners in the use of interactive imagery or elaborative mnemonic strategies (Pressley, 1982; Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982). All subjects participated before memory and mnemonics were covered in their psychology course. None of the participants had taken a course in Latin or knew Latin.

Materials

Each subject learned a list of 32 Latin nouns, none of which are commonly known in English. It was possible to generate a concrete keyword for some part of each of the vocabulary items, and each word had a concrete meaning corresponding to a concept well-known by university students. For example, the list included f&mm-temple, accolu-farmer, and r&s-ship. Three sample items were used during instruction, tire-soldier, brumu-winter, and hillue-sausage.

All vocabulary items were presented on 12.7 x 20.3-cm (5 x g-in.) white cards, one vocabulary word to a card. The word and its definition were typed in capital letters. Cards were mounted in a three-ring binder, with the same random order of presentation to each subject. A cassette tape recording accompanied presentation of the vocabulary, with each word and its meaning pronounced once, followed by a 10-s delay before presentation of the next item (i.e., 12 s allocated to each item on the tape). At testing subjects were presented 32 cards, one at a time, each containing one of the vocabulary items.

Subjects in the two pegword experience conditions were presented two 21.5 x 28-cm sheets of laminated paper, one with the IO-pegword one-is-a-bun poem printed on it and one with a IO-item list of concrete items that the subject was to learn using the pegword mne- manic

The hint provided in the hint condition and pegword experience + hint condition was an amalgamation of the three terms most frequently used by adults who spontaneously use keyword-elaborative strategies to describe their strategy use (e.g., Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, & Michener, 1982). These three terms are “association,” “imagery,” and “mnemonics,” and thus, the hint, “use association, imagery, and/or mnemonics.”

Design and Procedures All subjects were seen individually in a quiet room at the university. Immediately after

entering the laboratory, subjects were given instructions appropriate to their condition. Pegword experience instructions (Pegword Experience and Pegword Experience + Hint

conditions). Subjects in the two pegword experience conditions were required to learn a list of 10 concrete items in order before they were given the vocabulary task. After seeing the list for 10 s, subjects were told that they would be taught a special method for learning items in order. They were provided 2 min to memorize the one-is-a-bun poem, followed by a recall test on it (i.e., subjects recited the poem). When mastery did not occur on one trial, subjects were permitted another 2 min of study. Most could recall the poem after one trial. Only three subjects required a second trial.

After poem mastery subjects were shown the lo-item list again and were informed that the poem could be used to learn the list. The experimenter told them that a good way to remember that book is the first item is to make up an interactive image between the pegword bun (from one-is-a-bun) and book, for instance, an image of a bun with a book in place of the meat. Subjects made up interactive images for the second and third list items, telling the experimenter their images with feedback provided. Any interactive image involving the appropriate pegword and list item was accepted as appropriate. Subjects were then given 2 min to learn the other 7 items on the list using the remaining seven pegs. After study, they recalled the items in order. I f unable to recall the entire list, they studied for another 2 min

1.54 PRESSLEY AND AHMAD

with another test following. After list mastery, pegword experience subjects received condition-appropriate instructions for learning the 32 vocabulary words.

Vocabulary study instructions. Vocabulary learning instructions came at the beginning of the session for subjects not provided pegword experience, or immediately after successful recall of the IO-item list for pegword experience subjects. Subjects practiced their strategy with the three sample items.

No-strategy control and pegword experience subjects were instructed simply to try hard to remember the meanings of all words presented to them. Rehearsal control subjects learned by saying the words and meanings aloud over and over for the 12 s allocated to each word during presentation. Subjects in the hint condition and participants in the pegword experience + hint condition were told to use “association, imagery, and/or mnemonics” to learn the vocabulary. Keyword instruction participants were shown the sample word tire, told to note that part of it sounded like the word tire, and were instructed that a good way to remember that tiro means soldier is to make an interactive image of a tire and a soldier. Subjects reported their images and then executed the strategy with the other two sample words.

Vocabu/ary item presentation and testing. Following strategy instructions and practice, subjects in all conditions were told that a very long list of vocabulary items would be presented, one at a time for 12 s apiece. They were reminded to follow closely the directions they had been given. Before each word was presented, an alerting signal sounded, indi- cating to the subject to flip the card in the binder to the next word. The recorded pronoun- ciation of the word and meaning followed this tone by approximately 1% s.

Immediately after all 32 words were presented for study, subjects in all conditions were shown a sheet with 5 of the vocabulary words and meanings printed on it (a different set of 5 randomly selected words for each subject). Participants detailed out loud what she/he did to learn the meaning of the 5 words. The 5 items were probed one at a time with the subjects’ responses tape-recorded. These interviews were used to derive the demonstrated use scores taken up in the results section.

Then, subjects were asked to estimate how many of the 32 items had been learned using the keyword method by responding to the following question:

Sometimes people use a strategy to learn vocabulary words. I am interested in one particular strategy. Did you ever do anything like the following to learn the vocabulary words? For instance, notice the part of tiro sounds like an English word that you al- ready know, the word tire. To remember that tire means soldier, you might say, “The soldier changed a tire,” or imagine a soldier changing a tire. Or for the word bruma which means winter you might note that bruma sounds like the word broom and say, “You use a broom to sweep the snow in winter.” For how many of the 32 vocabulary words did you use that strategy or a strategy very similar to it.

After this estimate was provided, recall of the Latin meanings was tested. The experimenter showed each word and permitted up to 10 s to respond. Test order was random and different for each subject.

RESULTS

Analysis of the Separate Dependent Variables

Three dependent variables were collected in this study. (1) Although all 32 items were tested for dejinition recall, the data for the 5 probed items were deleted from the recall results. This produced recall data unconta-

IMAGERY-BASED MNEMONICS 15.5

minated by exposure other than presentation during study.’ Thus, if a subject recalled 24 items overall, 3 of which were probed for strategy use. their percentage recall would have been 77.8% (21/27). (2) Two raters achieved 92% agreement in classifying the subject’s five sfr-a/egy demonstrations, with difficult items resolved by consultation between the two raters. Credit for demonstrated use of a keyword elaborative strategy was assigned if a subject reported the keyword strategy exactly as operation- alized in this experiment or a close variation of it (e.g.. a verb for a keyword rather than a concrete noun). If a subject reported using the keyword method for 3 of the 5 probed items. their percentage demonstrated strategy use score would have been 60.00%. (3) Estimrlted str-rrtegy IISCJ was the percentage of items that a learner estimated to have studied using the keyword method (after the method was described to them following study of the 32 vocabulary). This estimation was based on all 32 vocabulary, rather than 27 as in the recall data. Thus. if a subject claimed to have used the method to learn 24 items, the estimated use score would have been 75.00%.

The mean percentages of definitions recalled, demonstrated strategy use, and estimated strategy use are recorded in Table 1 as a function of experimental condition. These variables have usually been considered separately (e.g.. Pressley & Levin, 1977; Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, & Michener, 1982: Rohwer & Bean. 1973). and thus, we report univariate analyses of each of these dependent measures.

Analyses of the three dependent variables were conducted using planned comparisons (Kirk, 1982) with a per comparison Type 1 error rate G .Ol [cut-off t( 111) = 1( 114) I- 2.621. For each analysis, all pairwise comparisons between conditions were made. Means that differed significantly in these analyses are superscripted with different letters in Table I. With this setup the per variable experimentwise error rate G .15, compa- rable to the omnibus error rate in other analyses that are frequently employed with six cells and .05 Type 1 error per effect (e.g., 3 x 2 ANOVA, or perhaps in this case a 2 x 2 ANOVA with two outside comparison conditions).

In addition to keyword use, subjects reported deployment of other strategies. These strategies were not a central concern in this investigation and thus, are considered only briefly. The most frequent nonkey- word strategy was repetition, which occurred 16.7% of the time and was most common in the rehearsal control condition (41% of the demonstrations in that condition) and very rare in the pegword experience + hint and keyword conditions (2% of the time). Subjects found a keyword and then noted a similarity between it and the meaning referents 6.8% of the

’ Had the five probed items been included in the recall data. there uould have been no

change\ in the pattern of recall difference\ reported.


TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE DEFINITIONS RECALLED, PERCENTAGE DEMONSTRATED STRATEGY USE,

PERCENTAGE ESTIMATED STRATEGY USE, AND AGGREGATED SCORES AS A FUNCTION OF EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

Experimental condition

Definition recall*

Demonstrated use**

Estimated use*‘*

Aggregated score****

Rehearsal control No strategy control Hint F’egword experience Pegword experience

+ hint

27.2” 29.00”,b 34.8” -2.23” 30.2” 27.4”$ 39.8” - l.%Ub$ 40.4”JJ 49.0b.C 49.W -0.406’ 52.W 49.5”,‘$ 66.0b.C 0.7cW

57.4’ 63.2CdS 67. lb,’ 1.37d’S Keyword instruction 63.7’ 77.06 79.7’ 2.52’

MS, = 315.99 MS, = 623.94 MS, = 570.18 MS, = 3.86 df= 114 df= 111 df= 114 df= 111

No&. Values sharing the same letter superscript within a column do not differ significantly when compared pairwise, a priori ‘@pe I per comparison error rate s.01.

* n = 20 per condition; 16.06% difference between conditions required to reach statistical significance.

** n = 20 per condition, except II = 19 for cells marked $; 20.70% difference required to reach significance when n = 20 in both conditions; 20.97% difference required when n = 20 in one cell and n = 19 in the other: 21.23% difference when n = 19 in both cells.

*** n = 20 per condition; 19.78% difference between conditions required for significance. **** n = 20 per condition, except n = 19 for cells marked $; 1.63 difference required to reach signifi-

cance when n = 20 in both conditions; 1.65 difference required when n = 20 in one cell and n = 19 in the other; 1.67 difference when n = 19 in both cells.

time (e.g., for vestis-robe, both a vest and a robe are clothing). There were only small differences between conditions in the use of this strategy. Subjects focused on similar physical features of vocabulary and meanings 7.5% of the time (e.g., both baca and bead start with b). The only note- worthy conditions difference for this strategy report was that it was rare (2%) in the keyword condition. Subjects sometimes found a keyword, but did little else (e.g., truncus sounds like trunk). This type of error was most prevalent in the no-strategy control and hint conditions, with 10.5 and 9% of the demonstrations, respectively. Next highest mean for this error was 5% in the rehearsal control condition; 1 to 3% in the remaining conditions. Other strategies occurred but were very infrequent, including use of root words as mediators and/or use of semantic relationships (e.g., forplumbum-bullet, plumbum is lead on the chemistry chart, and bullets are made of lead).

Correlational Analyses Involving the Separate Dependent Variables

There was sufftcient within-cell variation in all cells to permit correlational analyses of the definition recall and estimated use data.2 Estimated keyword method use correlated with definition recall in each of the six conditions, r ranged from .25 to .70, mean r = .47.

* In five of the six conditions, there was little within-cell variation in the keyword method demonstration data.


Aggregated Analysis

None of the three dependent measures is a perfectly reliable measure of elaborative strategy use. Of course, no perfect indicator exists. An aggregated measure of strategy use based on all three dependent variables, however, provides a more stable indication of strategy employ- ment than any one of the measures alone (e.g.. Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983). The : scores for each of the separate variables were cal- culated and added for each subject to construct the aggregated score: the mean aggregated scores are displayed in Table I. The aggregate was ana- lyzed following the same analysis plan used to evaluate the separate dependent measures (i.e., I5 pairwihe comparisons made at per comparison Type I rate < .Ol).

DISCUSSION

As in other research, performance was better following keyword instruction that it was in no-strategy and rehearsal control conditions: no- strategy subjects were only very slightly more elaborative than rehearsal control learners (see Pressley. 1982: Pressley. Levin. & Delaney, 1982). As in previous reports, there were correlations between memory and estimated strategy use (e.g., Pressley, Levin, Kuiper. Bryant, & Michener. 1982). These replications increase confidence in the other more novel comparisons that were the main concerns of the investigation. Confi- dence is increased further by the striking parallels in performance pat- terns on the different dependent measures.

Strategy production deficiencies are rarely all-or-nothing affairs (e.g.. Flavell, 1985; Rohwer, 1973; Turnure. Buium. & Thurlow. 1976). In sup- port of this position are recent demonstrations that effective processing sometimes is increased substantially when subjects are given vague cues to carry out more efficient cognitive routines than ones used spontaneously (e.g., Crisafi & Brown. 1983: Gick & Holyoak. 1980, 1983: Ross. 1984). The hint manipulation carried out here is directly relevant to the hypothesis that sophisticated processing can be increased by cuing short of complete instruction.

Although the only statistically significant difference between hint and no-strategy control conditions occurred on the demonstration measure, there were trends in favor of the hint condition in the other three analyses, with the comparison in the most sensitive analysis, the one involving the aggregated scores, just missing significance c.0167 2 p 2 .Ol). Given this pattern of results, the most circumspect conclusion is that the hint had a small positive impact. Even conceding that the hint probably increased elaboration, we emphasize that hinting did not elevate strategy use to the level observed in the keyword instruction condition. This makes obvious that the elaboration production deficiency is not due just to failure to recognize that mnemonics could be employed to learn vocab-

158 PRESLEY AND AHMAD

ulary. That substantial keyword instruction versus hint differences were obtained strengthens the case that keyword instruction fares well against alternative interventions, ones that are theoretically compelling a priori (e.g., McDaniel & Pressley, 1984; Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, & Michener, 1982; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press: Pressley, Levin, & Miller, 1982).

Pegword experience promoted use of the keyword method on the vocabulary task. Such strategy transfer occurred even without cuing (i.e., in the pegword experience condition) and was slightly more pronounced with cuing was provided (i.e., in the pegword experience + hint condition), with pegword experience + hint performance not differing significantly from keyword instruction levels in any of the analyses.

This generalization in the pegword experience conditions is impressive because of the pronounced processing differences between the pegword and keyword situations. The pegword mnemonic is structured for appli- cation with lists of single items; keyword applies to single paired materials (e.g., foreign vocabulary and their meanings). Pegwords are memo- rized and can be used with any list; keywords must be generated on a case-by-case basis. Retrieval with keyword mnemonics goes from vocabulary item to keyword to meaning, whereas retrieval with the pegword system goes from list position numbers (subjects often have to generate these on their own) to pegwords to items.

Nonetheless, there is a skill in common to the pegword and keyword techniques, the use of proxies in interactive relationships with to-be-remembered content (list items. definitions). A pegword is a proxy for a list position number, and a keyword a proxy for an acoustically similar vocabulary item. The pegword experience may have induced the rule, “Use a proxy in interaction with what must be remembered.” One part of the strategy demonstration data supports this argument. 10.5 and 9% of the time, respectively, control and hint subjects generated keywords but did not put the keywords in interactions with the definitions: that error rarely occurred in pegword experience conditions, suggesting that pegword experience made obvious the criticality of both the keyword proxy and the interactive image. Regardless of the exact mechanism mediating the transfer, however, the generalization reported here is the most impressive demonstration of elaborative transfer in the literature to date. Previous reports of elaborative generalization have been from one task perfectly matched to the keyword technique to another strategy perfectly matched to the strategy. That is, the training task was one form of paired-associate learning, vocabulary learning, and the transfer task was another form of paired-associate learning, acquiring city-product pairings (O’Sullivan & Pressley, 1984; Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980).

The positive outcomes in the pegword experience conditions invite additional investigation of the generalized impact of encounters with mne-


monies. Of course, study of such encounters should extend beyond laboratory experiences, and include examination of strategy use induced by formal instruction about mnemonics, such as occurs in elementary psychology courses (e.g., Gleitman, 1981; Roediger, Rushton, Capaldi, & Paris, 1984). The anecdote that motivated the experiment reported here may be telling with regard to one way that elaborative propensity de- velops in the minority of adults who evidence “spontaneous” use of elaboration. Some people are probably exposed to elaborative strategies in school and in other places, just as our introductory psychology students encountered mnemonics in their introductory psychology course. Our “gut” feeling that this experience hypothesis may be correct is bolstered by many reports that we have received over the years from subjects in our experiments who did evidence use of mnemonics without in-experiment instructions to do so. These people have told us that they saw Harry Lorayne on television, that teachers have instructed them to imagine shopping-list items in relation to parts of Raquel Welch’s body, and that they have seen memory tricks in some of their textbooks. These informal reports suggest a rich network of memory strategy instruction in the real world. That network should be explored in detail. As potential methods of real-world strategy acquisition are identified, investigators should return to the laboratory to evaluate whether the mechanisms identified in the world are in fact sufficient to change memory strategy use. That is what we did here.

REFERENCES

ATKINSON, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. Americun Psycho/o- gist, 30, 821-828.

BELLEZZA. E S. (1983). Mnemonic-device instruction with adults. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Congitive strcttegy reseuwh: Psyci7ofogicd ,forrndurions. New York: Springer-Verlag.

BROWN, A. L., & CAMPIONE, J. C. (1984). Three faces of transfer: Implications for early competence, individual differences, and instruction. In M. E. Lamb, A. L. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Adwnces in detvlopmental p.~ycl~~/og~ (Vol. 3, pp. 143- 191). Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

CRISAFI, M. A., & BROWN, A. L. (1983). Flexible use of on inferentirrl reasoning rule by very young children. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Re- search in Child Development, Detroit.

FLAVELL, J. H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsett (Eds.), Advances in child delw-lopmenf und behuvior (Vol. 5). New York: Aca- demic Press.

FLAVELL, J. H. (1985). Cognitirse drvelopmenr (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

GICK, M. L., & HOLYOAK. K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology. 12, 306-355.

GICK, M. L., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogni- tive Psychology, 14, l-38.

GLE~TMAN, H. (1981). Psychology. New York: Norton. KATZ, A. N., & NEWBY, W. (1980). An inrr-odrrcfion to psyc1zologictrl reseLlr(,Iz. Lexington.

MA: Ginn.


MCDANIEL, M. A.. PRESSI-EY. M. (1984). Putting the keyword method in context. Jor/r~rr/ of Ed~~tionu/ P.swl~h~~. 76, 598-609.

O’SULUVAN, J. T.. & PKESSLEY. M. (1984). Completeness of instruction and strategy

transfer. Jorrrntrl c!f‘E.~~[~~i,,lenttr[ Chi/d Ps.vc~/~o/o,~~. 38, 275-288.

PAIVIO. A., & DESKOCHERS. A. (1981). Mnemonic techniques in second-language leal-nine.

Jorrrnul ofEdr/c~ariontr/ P.sJ~~o/o~~. 73, 780-795.

PRESSLEY, M. ( 1982). Elaboration and memory development. C//i/t/ DcI,c,/o~/~~c,/~/. 53.

296-309.

PRESSLEY, M.. & DENNIS-ROUNDS. J. (1980). Transfer of a mnemonic keyword \trategh at

two age levels. Jolr,/7tr/ c~f‘Edu~~~tio~~~~/ Psyc~l~olop~. 72, 575-582. PRESSLEY. M.. & LEVIN. J. R. (1977). Developmental differences in \ubjectj‘ associative

learning strategies and performance: Assessing a hypothe\i>. Jorrr,~o/ c!t’L\l?c’/.i/r~c,/lrol

Child Psyc~l~o/o~~, 24, 43 I-439.

PRESSLEY. M.. LEVIN. J. R.. & DELANEY. H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyuord method.

Reorient c~fEdrrc~rtio/7tr/ Rr.\etrrc /I. 52, 61 -91. PKESSL~Y, M.. LEVIN. J. R.. DIGIION. N.. B~yn~r. S. L.. & R.\\. K. (19X3). Doe\ method of

item presentation affect keyword method effectiveness? Joro./ro/ c!f’~~lrrc~trti~~/~trl /‘\I

chology, 75, 686-691.

PRESSLEY. M.. LEVIY. J. R.. KUIPEK. N. A.. BK~.XNT. S. L.. & MIC‘H~UI.K. S. (IYX?). Mne-

monic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning \trategie5: Additional comparisons.

Jorrmd of Edrrctrtiontrl Ps,vc~l~h,qy, 74, 693-707. PRESSL~Y. M.. LEVIN. J. R., & McD,~NIEI.. M. A. (in press). Mnemonic and contextual

procedure5 for remembering what a word means. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curt& (Eds.). The 170171~ c~f~wc~trhrrltrr~~ oc~yrtisiriou. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

PKESSLEY. M.. LEVIN. J. R.. & Mn.t.EK. G. E. (1982). The keyword method compared to

alternative vocabulary learning strategic\. C~,,~te,~~pr~o,.~ Eclrrc~tr/io/7tr/ P.t~c~/~o/o,qt~. 7.

50-60.

ROEIIIG~R. H. L. III. RUSHTON. J. P.. C.A~;\I 01. E. D.. & P.IKIS. S. G. (IYX4). P.~,vc~/~o/o,v.

Boston: Little. Brown.

ROHWER. W. D.. JR. (1973). Elaboration and learning in childhood and adolescence. In

H. W. Reese (Ed. ). A~htrr7c~e.\ jr7 c,hi/tl t/~~1,e/oprf7rr7rtr/ rrutl helrtr~~ior (Vol. 8). Neu York: Academic Press.

ROHWER, W. D.. JK.. & BEAN. J. P. (1973). Sentence effects and noun-pair learning: A devel-

opmental interaction during adolescence. Jortr/7o/ of E.rpc~riu7c~utrrl Child P.cyc ho/o~?..

15, 521-533. ROHWEK. W. D.. JR,. & LIIKOWNIK. J. (1983). Age and individual differences in the learning

of a memorization procedure. Jouwtrl c~f‘Edrrc~trtio~~tr/ P.ryc~lw/ogy. 75, 799-8 IO. ROHWER, W. D.. JK.. RABINOWITZ. M.. & DRONK~KS. N. F. (1982). Event knowledge. ela-

borative propensity. and the development of learning proficiency. Jo,trrrtr/ o,f tv-pcri- ,nrtitctl Child P.\.w/?o/og~. 33, 492-503.

ROSS, B. H. (1984). Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive akill. Co,qtri/i~.c

P.syho/og~. 16, 371 -416. RUSHTON. J. P.. BKAINEKD. C. J.. & PK~SSL~.Y. M. (1983). Behavioral development and con-

struct validity: The principle of aggregation. P.\~~~ho/o~ic~tr/ Bu//eti/~. 94, 1X-38.

SCHANK, R. C. (1982). Dyt70/77i(. ,~lc,m~,.y. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pres\.

TURNURE, J.. Bu~uzl. N.. & THUKL.OW. M. (1976). The effectiveness of interrogatives for

prompting verbal elaboration productivity in young children. Child De~~c~lopmc~~~f. 47,

851-855.

Documents

Transfer of imagery-based mnemonics by adult learners