Richmond, A. S., Cummings, R., & Klapp, M. (2008). Transfer of the method of loci, pegword, and keyword in the eighth grade classroom. Researcher, 21(2), X-X.

Transfer of the Method of Loci, Pegword, and Keyword Mnemonics in the Eighth Grade Classroom

Aaron S. Richmond Rhoda Cummings

Metropolitan State College of Denver University of Nevada-Reno

Michael Klapp

Washoe County School District

The goal of this study was to understand any researchers have developed whether students could transfer use of a various techniques for effective under both specific and general study strategies. Studies transfer conditions. One-hundred and eight demonstrating the effectiveness eighth-grade students were randomly assigned of such strategies have included to one of four conditions (e.g., method of loci, investigations of the following: (a) note pegword, keyword, or free study). Over a 2-week taking in high school English (Hale, 1983), period, students learned their assigned (b) knowledge organization strategies in mnemonic device, were tested on their ability to science instruction (Mintzes, Wandersee, & transfer their mnemonic under a specific Novak, 1997), (c) comprehension transfer condition (study metal alloy uses) and a monitoring in reading instruction (Hacker, general transfer condition (study Revolutionary 1998), and (d) techniques War battle events). The results of this study (mnemonics) in science instruction in indicate that students who used the keyword middle school, high school, and adult mnemonic could transfer the use of a mnemonic education (Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980; under specific transfer and general transfer Roediger, 1980; Scruggs & Mastropieri conditions. The results of this study provide 2000). Although many of these study evidence to researchers and teachers that by strategies have been found to be effective in teaching the keyword mnemonic to eighth-grade increasing students’ academic performance, students may increase their repertoire of other studies have demonstrated that memory strategies which in turn enhances mnemonic instruction, a specific memory academic performance. technique, may be one of the more effective ways to improve eighth-grade science Keywords: Mnemonics, Middle School Science, knowledge (Levin, Morrison, McGivern, Transfer Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 1986; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1992). Thus the purpose of this ______All correspondence should be sent to Dr. Richmond at: Metropolitan State College of Denver, Department of , Campus Box 54, P.O. Box 173362, Denver, CO, 80217-3362, e-mail: [email protected], phone: 303- 556-3085, fax: 303-556-2169. A. S. Richmond et al. 2 study is to determine if students can learn a asked to recall George Washington, they given mnemonic and then transfer use of visualize him sitting on a desk (Yates, 1966). this mnemonic to other content domains. THE PEGWORD METHOD. The pegword Three specific types of mnemonics were method is a two-stage process. In the first investigated: the method of loci, the stage, learners are asked to learn 10 pegword method, and the keyword number-rhyme pairs (e.g., one is a bun, two method. is a shoe, and three is a tree, etc.). In the second stage, learners are given a picture or REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE asked to visualize the to-be-remembered item linking the rhyming words to the to- MNEMONICS be-remembered item. For example, if the to- Mnemonics are memory aids that assist be-remembered item is George Washington, one in remembering specific information by the image of President Washington holding using a process, strategy, or technique that a bun could be shown as a picture or the enables a person to improve memory student would be instructed to create a (Higbee, 1977). Mnemonics are comprised vivid of this picture. When of mental cues that are created to make the learner must recall the first president, information retrievable. This is done by this image comes to mind and he recalls associating a similar or dissimilar piece of George Washington (Roediger, 1980; information (mental cue) with the Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2000). information needed to-be-remembered THE KEYWORD METHOD. The keyword (Bellezza, 1996; Bjorklund, 2000). mnemonic requires two stages: an acoustic There are three main types of mnemonics link stage and an imagery link stage described in the literature (Bellezza, 1996). (Atkinson, 1975; Levin, 1981). First, the These include the method of loci (Yates, learner is given a ‘keyword’ that is 1966), the pegword method (Roediger, acoustically similar to and that can be 1980), and the keyword method (Atkinson, visualized as interacting with the item to- 1975). be-remembered. For example, the word THE METHOD OF LOCI. The method of loci perro is Spanish for dog. An acoustically mnemonic is the oldest mnemonic, which similar and visually represented word involves three steps (Yates, 1966). First, would be pear. In the second stage, the learners are required to memorize a “series learner would form the visual image of the of distinct loci along a familiar pathway” keyword pear and the target word perro (Moe & De Beni, 2005, p. 95). Second, interacting in some way. Thus, for perro a learners are required to convert to-be- learner might visualize a dog holding a pear remembered words, such as George in its mouth. When the learner is asked to Washington, into mental representations. recall the definition of perro, the Next, learners are required to “deposit the visualization is invoked and she can then image along some salient location along the recall the definition (Atkinson, 1975; Levin, path” (Roediger, 1980, p. 559). For example, 1981). George Washington would be sitting in a desk. Learners are then instructed to take a TRANSFER mental walk through the room to recall the “How do we make sense of the ways in target information. Then, when learners are which people use knowledge in circumstances different from the

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 3 circumstances in which that knowledge was grade to mnemonic research in educational developed?” (Shoenfeld, 1999, p. 7). As settings. Levin concluded that not only Shoenfeld stated, it seems prudent and should researchers further the theoretical important to investigate how students learn investigation of mnemonic devices in all one skill or set of information and then aspects of learning, but more importantly apply this skill to new situations. they should take basic research conducted Transfer refers to the student’s ability to in a laboratory setting and apply it to real- use previously learned knowledge or world educational settings. Congruent with strategy to solve another problem (Gray & Levin’s (1993) comments, Scruggs and Orsanu, 1987). Transfer is also divided into Mastropieri (2000) have reported that out of two distinct categories—specific transfer 34 mnemonic studies only 10 have been and general transfer. Specific transfer is the conducted in educational settings, such as ability to transfer knowledge, skills, or the public school classroom. The strategies to a new problem that is similar to conclusions and recommendations made by the original context of the learned Scruggs and Mastropieri (2000) that are knowledge, skill, or strategy (Gray & strengthened by Levin (1993), who provides Orsanu, 1987). General transfer occurs when a rationale for conducting quality research the learner transfers knowledge, skills or on the use of mnemonics in the classroom. strategies to a new problem or learning task MNEMONIC TRANSFER. To date, only two that is dissimilar in context to the context in studies have investigated the issue of which the skill or strategy originally was transfer of mnemonics by middle school learned (Gray & Orsanu, 1987). students (see Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1992). Scruggs MNEMONICS IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS and Mastropieri (1992) studied the A review of literature on mnemonics and acquisition, maintenance and generalization mnemonic use in middle school settings (i.e. transfer) effects of mnemonic training reveal some specific problems (Levin, 1993). of science information with LD students. First, there is the problem of conducting They found that once trained in the mnemonic research in the laboratory rather keyword method, LD students were able to than in the school (Levin, 1993). Second, transfer this strategy to new, but similar and more important, is the question of science information (specific transfer). This whether middle school students can study has important implications for the independently transfer mnemonics learned present study. Scruggs and Mastropieri are in one setting to a different setting (Cormier the only researchers to study mnemonic & Hagman, 1987; Levin, 1993; Schoenfeld, transfer of science vocabulary in middle 1999). school students and they found significant LAB TO FIELD RESEARCH. Levin (1993) differences between controls and students reviewed mnemonic research over the past who used mnemonics on the transfer task. 20 years and assigned a grade of A, B, C, D, Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980) or F to many different aspects of mnemonic investigated keyword mnemonic transfer at research. Levin assigned an “A” grade to two different age levels (middle school vs. the area of mnemonic research addressing high school students). The researchers the effects of applying mnemonics to found that when students were trained in learning disabled (LD) students’ the keyword mnemonic, only the high achievement. However, he assigned an “F” school students were able to successfully

A. S. Richmond et al. 4 transfer the memory strategy to other METHOD dissimilar information (general transfer). However, when middle school students PARTICIPANTS were prompted (provided pictures) to use One hundred and eight middle school the keyword mnemonic, they too were able students in eighth-grade science classes to transfer the memory strategy to new participated in this study. In each class, information. Results of this study have two students were randomly assigned to one of key implications for the present study. First, three mnemonic conditions (method of loci, middle school students were able to transfer pegword and keyword) and to one control the keyword method to dissimilar material condition (free study). Random assignment (general transfer) only when prompted with was consistent within each classroom with visual representations of the mnemonic. an attempt to assign an equal number of Second, as in Scruggs and Mastropieri’s students to each of the four conditions. The study, unlike the present study, the sample included 50% males and 50% researchers did not look at the differential females with a diverse range of ethnicity effects of various mnemonic methods and (60.40% Caucasian, 22.00% Hispanic, 6.60% did not differentiate between general and Asian, 4.40% Native American, 3.30% specific transfer tasks. African American, and 3.3% other). On In sum, two major problems revealed in average, students were 13 years and 7 the literature on mnemonic use in education months old. have implications for the present study. First, there is a need to conduct mnemonic MEASUREMENTS research in schools rather than in labs DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY. Students were (Levin, 1993; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998). given a short demographic survey Second, there are no studies that investigate providing information about gender, birth specific and/or general transfer of use of date, and ethnicity. The survey was adapted the three mnemonic methods of (a) the from questions used in studies by Scruggs, method of loci, (b) the pegword method, Mastropieri, Sullivan, and Hesser (1993). and (c) the key word method. . PRIOR KNOWLEDGE TEST. Similar to that of Hwang and Levin (2002), this study used a RESEARCH QUESTIONS prior knowledge pretest in order to Based on the above stated problems, the determine whether students in the four following research questions were asked: conditions had similar or dissimilar levels RQ#1: Can students transfer use of a of prior knowledge. All of the vocabulary mnemonic to learn new information that is terms taught in the specific transfer task similar (specific transfer) to the originally (science vocabulary), and the general studied science vocabulary? transfer tasks (history facts) were combined RQ#2: Can students transfer use of a into one matching test that included a total mnemonic to new information that is of 20 matching questions. dissimilar (general transfer) to the originally METAL ALLOY TEST. The structure of this studied science vocabulary? test was also adopted and modified from a RQ#3: Are there differences between combination of measures used in Rummel, specific and general transfer tasks based on Levin, Woodward (2003). In this measure, type of mnemonic method? students were given a list of 10 metal alloys (e.g., manganese, duriron, invar) with a

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 5 corresponding use for each alloy (e.g., students in each of the four conditions manganese = railroads). One point was received one booklet with examples of awarded when students correctly matched mnemonics and instructions. The science each allow with its use. There was a total of vocabulary materials that were used to 10 points possible. initially teach the student were drawn from REVOLUTIONARY WAR TEST. This test was a popular eighth-grade physical science adopted and modified from a measure used textbook written by McLaughlin and in a study by Brigham, Scruggs, and Thompson (1999). The science vocabulary Mastropieri (1995). Students were given 10 primarily focused on states of matter and Revolutionary War battle names with properties of gases. For example, corresponding events (e.g., Yorktown = last Archimedes’ Principle states “the buoyant major battle of the war). One point was force on an object in a fluid is equal to the awarded for correctly matching the battle weight of the fluid displaced by the object” name to the description. There was a total of (McLaughlin & Thompson, 1999, p. 235). 10 points possible. Specific transfer. To test for specific It should be noted that both the metal transfer, students in each of the four alloy and Revolutionary War tests were conditions received a booklet containing 16 constructed specifically for this study. Thus, collated 8 ½ by 11-inch pages. For each there are no reliability and validity statistics condition, a booklet was adapted and for these two measures. However, both modified from Carney, Levin, and Morrison measures do appear to have face validity (1988). Each booklet contains four major (e.g., the ability of these measures to test sections: (1) introduction, (2) strategy knowledge about metal alloys and description, (3) actual study, and (4) testing. Revolutionary War battles) (Bordens & In the introduction section, students were Abbot, 2005). given descriptive information about the DISTRACTOR TESTS. In order to control for study. For example, students were told that short-term memory effects, a distractor test they would learn a memory strategy, (a word search) was developed based on a practice the strategy, and then be tested on similar measure used by Carney and Levin the studied material. During the strategy (2000). Short-term memory effects occur description, students in each condition were when the student is able to rehearse the to- given a brief overview and description of be-remembered information from the end- their assigned strategy (e.g., method of loci, of-the-study time to the testing time pegword, keyword, or free study). (Carney & Levin, 2000). There were two Following this, students participated in the separate word searches used containing actual study section in which they studied words associated with the subjects of math the metal alloys. In the final testing section, and biology. Each word search contained 15 students were tested. As a reminder, words incorporated into a 10 by 10 matrix specific transfer occurs when the learner is of 100 letters. taught to use a learning strategy for one learning task and then is required to apply MATERIALS the same learning strategy to a learning task INITIAL MNEMONIC LEARNING. As part of a that is similar in content to the original task separate study, students were taught to use (Gray & Orsanu, 1987). Therefore, if the each of the three mnemonics. To teach originally studied material was information students how to use the mnemonics, about physical science vocabulary, then the

A. S. Richmond et al. 6 specific transfer materials should be similar transfer materials consisted of information in nature. Since the originally studied about metal alloys and their respective uses. material was derived from McLaughlin and For example, the metal manganese is used in Thompson’s (1999) physical science railroads (see Table 1 for a complete list and textbook, other science information description of the metal alloys). There are 10 contained in this book should be similar in different alloys with one use for each alloy. nature to the original material. The specific

Table 1. Specific Transfer Task Materials Metal Alloy Use Loci Pegwords Keywords Manganese Railroads Door 1-Bun Man & Geese Duriron Pipes Chair 2-Shoe Sir Byron Nikel Gears Sink 3-Tree Nickel Invar Measuring Tapes Clock 4-Door Engine Permalloy Radios Desk 5-Hive Worm Alley Stainless Knives Computer 6-Sticks Stanley High Speed Saw Blades TV 7-Heaven High Speed Solder Electronic Wires Projector 8-Gate Soldier Pewter Dinner Plates Aquarium 9-Vine Scooter Wrought Iron Fences Filing Cabinet 10-Hen Rotting Iron Note. This material is from McLaughlin and Thompson (1999).

Table 2. General Transfer Materials Battle Event Loci Pegwords Keywords Ticonderoga They captured cannon, which would be used Door 1-Bun Tiger later. Saratoga The French helped them. Chair 2-Shoe Sarah in a toga Cowpens They hid behind a hill for an ambush. Sink 3-Tree Cow Trenton They attacked on Christmas night. Clock 4-Door Tent Brandywine They stopped an attack on the capitol. Desk 5-Hive Brandy Vincennes They waded through a flood to get to the Computer 6-Sticks Fence battle. Cahokia Fought at the site of a large Indian mound. TV 7-Heaven Coke Yorktown Last major battle of the war. Projector 8-Gate Fork or cork Camden They were sick because of the bad food. Aquarium 9-Vine Camel Paoli They were attacked while they were sleeping. Cabinet 10-Hen Paycheck Note. The battles and events are from Brigham et al. (1995).

GENERAL TRANSFER. To test for general learning strategy to a different learning task transfer, students in each of the four that is dissimilar from the original content conditions received a booklet containing 16 (Gray & Orsanu, 1987). Thus, to devise collated 8 ½ by 11-inch pages with the same materials to be used in the General Transfer format described above. General transfer Task, the learning content must be different occurs when the learner is taught to use a from the original science content of science learning strategy under one specific vocabulary used in the initial mnemonic learning content (e.g., science vocabulary) learning task. In a study by Brigham et al. and then is required to apply the same (1995), the authors used the battle names of

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 7 the American Revolutionary War with that included the keyword. For example, associated battle events to test the effects of the keyword for manganese was man and different mnemonics on LD eighth-grade geese and they described a man and a geese students. Considering the definition of walking down railroad tracks. Refer to general transfer, historical battles should be Table 1 for student examples of their epistemologically different from physical mnemonic cues for each of the mnemonic science vocabulary. Therefore, a random conditions. Students were then given 20 selection of 10 of the 14 battles described in min to create their mnemonic and study the Brigham et al. (1995) was selected for the metal alloy material. Following the study general transfer task (see Table 2). period, students were given a 3-min distractor task. Students then completed a PROCEDURES 12-min metal alloy test. INITIAL MNEMONIC LEARNING PHASE. The GENERAL TRANSFER TASK. For this task, initial mnemonic learning phase was part of students were given a brief review of their a separate experiment in which students in respective mnemonic or free study all four conditions received the same format methods. Students were asked to study 10 for learning their respective mnemonic. Revolutionary War battles and their However, the content of the directions for defining event using their respective each mnemonic differed. For the method of mnemonic device. For example, students loci, the instructional material was based on who were trained in the pegword method procedures in studies described by Wang were asked to generate pegwords for each and Thomas (2000) and Roediger (1980). battle, and then write down an interactive The assigned locations were familiar sentence of the pegword, battle name, and classroom locations (e.g., desk, door, sink, battle description. For example the keyword etc.). For the pegword condition, initial for Cahokia could be coke and the learner mnemonic instructional materials were would describe an image of an Indian developed by adapting techniques used in drinking a coke in the middle of a battle. studies by Scruggs et al. (1993). For the Refer to Table 2 for student examples of keyword condition, the procedure was their respective mnemonic cues. Students developed based on the methods used in were given 20-min to create their mnemonic studies by Carney and Levin (1994). and study this material using the Finally, for the free study condition (control mnemonic. Following the study period, group), the procedure used was adopted students were given a 3-min distractor task. from studies conducted by Konopak and Students then completed a 12-min Williams (1988). Revolutionary War test. SPECIFIC TRANSFER PHASE. Students were first given a brief review of their respective RESULTS mnemonic method or free study method. Students were asked to study 10 metal PRIOR KNOWLEDGE PRETEST alloys and their respective uses by using the Two separate one-way Analyses of mnemonic method or free study method. Variances (ANOVA) were used to detect For example, students who were trained in possible differences in the amount of prior the keyword method were asked to knowledge among students in each of the generate keywords for each metal alloy and four conditions (e.g., method of loci, then write down an interactive sentence pegword, keyword, and free study). There

A. S. Richmond et al. 8

were no differences detected among the four conditions on the Metal Alloy Test (F(3, 104) = .312, p > .05, 2 = .009) and there were no differences detected among the four conditions on the Revolutionary War test (F(3, 104) = 2.15, p > .05, 2 = .06).

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of the Metal RESEARCH QUESTION 2 Alloy and Revolutionary War Tests To determine if students could transfer Metal Alloy Revolutionary use of a mnemonic to new information Condition Test War Test (Revolutionary War battle events) that was M SD M SD dissimilar (general transfer) to the originally Method of Loci 6.60 3.30 4.75 3.30 studied science vocabulary, a one-way Pegword 6.52 2.49 5.88 3.18 ANOVA was conducted to examine Keyword 9.16 1.65 8.79 1.69 Free Study 6.60 3.23 5.88 3.36 differences among the four conditions on the mean number of Revolutionary War RESEARCH QUESTION 1 battle events recognized. The ANOVA To determine if students could transfer revealed a significant effect (F(3, 92) = 7.72, 2 use of a mnemonic (loci, pegword, and p<.001, = .20), indicating a difference keyword) to learn new information (metal among conditions in the mean number of alloys) that was similar (specific transfer) to Revolutionary War battle events recognized the originally studied science vocabulary, a (see Figure 1 and Table 3). Post hoc analyses one-way ANOVA was conducted. The reveal that students in the keyword ANOVA revealed a significant effect (F(3, condition recognized significantly more 96) = 5.54, p < .01, 2 = .15), indicating that Revolutionary War battle events than did there was a difference among conditions in students in the method of loci, pegword, the mean number of metal alloy uses and free study conditions (p < .05; see Table recognized (see Figure 1 and Table 3). Post 3 and Figure 1). The other conditions did hoc analyses were conducted using not significantly differ from one another Dunnet’s T3 pairwise (Toothaker, 1991). (ps>.05). Students in the keyword condition RESEARCH QUESTION 3 recognized significantly more uses of metal To assess whether there were differences alloys than did students in the method of between specific and general transfer tasks loci, pegword, and free study conditions ps based on mnemonic type, four paired < .05; see Table 3). The other conditions did sampled t-tests were conducted for each not significantly differ from one another condition. These analyses were conducted (see Figure 1). on the scores on the metal alloys test (specific transfer task) and the Revolutionary War test (general transfer task). There were no significant differences between specific and general transfer tasks among any of the conditions (ps>.05; see Figure 2).

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 9

specific transfer conditions. However, an in- depth analysis of these results is warranted. Students in the keyword mnemonic may have been more successful at transferring their mnemonic because of the initial mnemonic learning. If students in the keyword condition were the only students

to successfully learn the mnemonic, then it is possible that students in the keyword condition would be the only students to successfully transfer the use of the mnemonic. Since the amount of instructional time, examples, and opportunities to practice affect the ability to DISCUSSION transfer mnemonics (Gick & Holyoak, 1987; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992), it is possible that PRIOR KNOWLEDGE PRETEST students in the method of loci and pegword Results indicate that prior to teaching conditions may need more instructional students how to use their respective time, examples and opportunities to mnemonic or free study method, students practice to learn how to use the mnemonic in each of the four conditions had the same properly. Presumably, it is difficult to amount of knowledge about metal alloys transfer use of a mnemonic if there is lack of and their uses, and Revolutionary War understanding of how to use the mnemonic events. These findings indicate that when in the first place (i.e., possibly what students’ knowledge increased on posttest students in the method of loci and pegword measures, the increase was attributable to conditions experienced). the mnemonic method, rather than to prior In conclusion, these findings suggest that knowledge of information. when students are self-taught the keyword mnemonic, they can transfer use of the mnemonic under specific transfer RESEARCH QUESTION 1 conditions. A major aim of education is to The intent of research question 1 was to teach students how to apply the knowledge examine students’ ability to transfer use of a that they gain in school to different but mnemonic to learn new information that similar situations. Hence, the finding that was similar (specific transfer) to the students can transfer the keyword originally studied science vocabulary. mnemonic to study a different set of similar Students in the keyword condition materials directly supports this educational recognized significantly more uses of metal goal. alloys (specific transfer) than did students in the method of loci, pegword, and free RESEARCH QUESTION 2 study conditions. There was no difference The purpose of the second research among any of the other conditions. question was to determine if students could On the surface, the results of the present transfer use of a mnemonic to new study indicate that the keyword mnemonic information that is dissimilar (general is the only mnemonic to transfer under transfer) to the originally studied science

A. S. Richmond et al. 10 vocabulary. Students in the keyword not successfully transfer to either specific or condition recognized significantly more general tasks. Prior research identifying Revolutionary War battle events than did factors that influence transfer (i.e., context students in the method of loci, pegword, free vs. context bound) may support this and free study conditions. There were no finding (Alexander & Judy, 1988). Since other differences detected. Again, this students in the keyword condition were finding may be due to the possibility that consistent with their performance on both students in the keyword condition were the tasks, it is possible that they were aware only group who successfully learned their that the learned mnemonic was not context mnemonic in the first place and thus were bound, but was context free from studying able to successfully transfer the use of the science vocabulary. This may have allowed mnemonic to dissimilar information. these students to transfer the mnemonic The implications of these findings method to study contextually dissimilar suggest that even when students are self- information (i.e., Revolutionary War battle taught the keyword mnemonic, they can events). It is possible that students did not transfer the use of the mnemonic under associate the learned mnemonic with general transfer conditions. The educational learning science vocabulary only, but implications of these findings suggest that realized that the mnemonic could be used to eighth-grade science teachers might teach study all sorts of information. their students to use the keyword From an educational perspective, these mnemonic to improve their science findings have important implications. It is knowledge. More importantly, findings beneficial for both educators and students, indicate that students can transfer the use of in that when students learn the keyword the keyword mnemonic to study not only mnemonic under a specific context (i.e., science content, but also to study history study science material) they then can use content (or other dissimilar information). this mnemonic to study different material (i.e., history content). LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH RESEARCH QUESTION 3 There was a main limitation to the To answer this research question, the procedures and analyses of this study. The present study sought to detect if differences instructional format (i.e., self-taught) may existed between specific and general have affected the effectiveness of the ability transfer tasks based on type of mnemonic of students to learn their respective condition. Among all conditions, there were mnemonic, which in turn may have affected no differences between performances on the their ability to transfer the use of the metal alloys test (specific transfer task) and mnemonic. Future researchers should the Revolutionary War test (general transfer design their procedures so that students in task). each mnemonic condition demonstrate the There were no differences among all ability to understand and use their conditions on the specific and general respective mnemonic. For example, instead transfer tasks. Students in the keyword of using a self-taught booklet, researchers condition effectively transferred their might use direct instruction to teach each mnemonic to both specific and general mnemonic to a group of students and then transfer tasks but students in the method of set a criterion that qualifies the student as loci, pegword, and free study condition did having successfully learned how to use and

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 11 apply the mnemonic (e.g., 70% recall or Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Children's thinking: recognition on a test). This may Developmental functional and individual demonstrate that students understand and differences. Belmont, CA: can use their respective mnemonic, which in Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. turn would give the researchers more Bordens, K. A., & Abbot, B. B. (2005). accurate measure of transferability. Research design and methods. (6th Ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. CONCLUSION Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Elaborative maps for The goals of this study were to enhancing learning of historical investigate the use of the method of loci, information: Uniting spatial, verbal, and pegword, and keyword mnemonics to imaginal information. Journal of Special study eighth-graders’ ability to transfer use Education, 28(4), 440-460. of these mnemonics under specific and Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (1994). general transfer conditions. As Combining mnemonic strategies to demonstrated by this study, the keyword remember who painted what when. mnemonic may be successfully used to Contemporary Educational Psychology, study different content that is similar and 19(3), 323-339. dissimilar to the originally studied Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2000). information. However, as Scruggs and Mnemonic Instruction, with a focus on Mastropieri (1992) suggest, “mnemonic transfer. Journal of Educational instruction as powerful as it has been Psychology, 92(4), 783-790. shown to be, is not an educational panacea” Carney, R. N., Levin, J. R., & Morrison, C. R. (p. 228). Therefore, mnemonic instruction (1988). Mnemonic learning of artists and should be used to augment other methods their paintings. American Educational of science instruction especially when Research Journal, 25, 107-125. instructional objectives require the Cormier, S. M., & Hagman, J. D. (1987). acquisition and retention of science Transfer of learning: Contemporary research vocabulary and facts. and applications. New York: Academic Press. REFERENCES Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), interaction of domain-specific and Transfer of learning: Contemporary research strategic knowledge in academic and applications. San Diego, CA: performance. Review of Educational Academic Press. Research, 58, 375-404. Gray, W. D., & Orsanu, J. M. (1987). Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in Transfer of cognitive skills. In S. M. second-language learning. American Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer Psychologist, 30, 821.828. of learning: Contemporary research and Bellezza, F. S. (1996). Mnemonic methods to applications. San Diego, CA: Academic enhance storage and retrieval. In E. L. Press. Bjork & R. Bjork (Eds.) Memory (pp. 345- Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated 380). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.

A. S. Richmond et al. 12

Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. educational theory and practice (pp. 165- D. (1997). Meaningful learning in 191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. science: The human constructivist Hale, G. A. (1983). Students' predictions of perspective. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), prose forgetting and effects of study Handbook of academic learning: strategies. Journal of Educational Construction of knowledge. San Diego, Psychology, 75, 708-715. CA: Academic Press. Higbee, K. L. (1977). Your memory. Moe, A., & De Beni, R. (2005). Stressing the Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. efficacy of the loci method: Oral Hwang, Y., & Levin, J. R. (2002). presentation and the subject-generation Examination of middle-school students' of the loci pathway with expository independent use of a complex passages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, mnemonic system. Journal of 19(1), 95-106. Experimental Education, 71(1), 25-38. Pressley, M., & Dennis-Rounds, J. (1980). Konopak, B. C., & Williams, N. L. (1988). Transfer of a mnemonic keyword Eighth graders' use of mnemonic strategy at two age levels. Journal of imagery in recalling science content Educational Psychology, 72(4), 575-582. information. Reading Psychology, 9(3), Roediger, H. L. (1980). The effectiveness of 233-250. four mnemonics in ordering recall. Levin, J. R. (1981). The mnemonic 80s: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Keywords in the classroom. Educational Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 558- Psychologist, 16(2), 65-82. 567.

Rummel, N., Levin, J. R., & Woodward, M. Levin, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and M. (2003). Do pictorial mnemonic text- classroom learning: A twenty-year learning aids give students something report card. Elementary School Journal, worth writing about? Journal of 94(2), 235-244. Educational Psychology, 95(2), 327-334. Levin, J. R., Morrison, C. R., McGivern, J. E., Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. vocabularyualizations of practice: (1986). Mnemonic facilitation of text- Common principles in three paradigms embedded science facts. American suggest new vocabulary for training. Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 489- Psychological Science, 3, 207-217. 506. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). the 21st century: Challenges of Constructing more meaningful Educational Theory and Practice. relationships in the classroom: Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4-14. Mnemonic research into practice. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Classroom applications of mnemonic 13(3), 138-145. instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, McLaughlin, C. W., & Thompson, M. (1999). and generalization. Exceptional Children, Physical science: Teacher wraparound 58(3), 219-229. edition. New York: Glencoe/McGraw- Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000). Hill. The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning

Researcher Vol. 21 Issue 2 13

and behavior problems: An update and Toothaker, L. E. (1991). Multiple comparisons research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral for researchers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Education, 10(2/3), 163-173. Wang, A. Y., & Thomas, M. H. (2000). Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Sullivan, Looking for long-term mnemonic effects G. S., & Hesser, L. S. (1993). Improving on serial recall: The legacy of simonides. reasoning and recall: The differential American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), effects of elaborative interrogation and 331-340. mnemonic elaboration. Learning Yates, F. A. (1966). The . Disability Quarterly, 16(3), 233-240. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

NOTE This manuscript was accepted as the 2007 Distinguished Paper received in October of 2007 at the annual conference of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association.

AUTHORS NOTE Aaron S. Richmond is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Rhoda Cummings is a Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the University of Nevada-Reno. Mike Klapp is a Middle School Science teacher at O’Brien Middle School in Stead Nevada.