Advertisement

ECTJ

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 83–88 | Cite as

Can children effectively reuse the same mnemonic pegwords?

  • Thomas E. Scruggs
  • Margo A. Mastropieri
  • Joel R. Levin
Articles

Abstract

Seventy-three fifth-grade students were taught nine North American minerals and their corresponding hardness levels under either mnemonic (pegword/keyword) or free-study conditions. In the zero-repetition (standard) condition, each mineral was paired with a unique hardness level (1–9); in the one-repetition condition, three hardness levels were each represented by two different minerals (and three hardness levels by one mineral); and in the two-repetition condition, three hardness levels were each represented by three different minerals (and three hardness levels by one mineral); and in the two-repetition condition, three hardness levels were each represented by three different minerals. In all repetition conditions, mnemonic subjects significantly and substantially outperformed students who were given free study. Possibilities for adapting mnemonic techniques to overcome stimulus-produced interference are discussed.

Keywords

Shoe Repetition Condition Hardness Level Hardness Scale Rhodochrosite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bugelski, B. R. (1968). Images as mediators in one-trial paired-associated learning. II: Self-timing in successive lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 328–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chesterman, C. W. (1978).The Audubon Society field guide to North American rocks and minerals. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  3. Levin, J. R., Dretzke, B. J., McCormick, D. B., Scruggs, T. E., McGivern, J. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1983). Learning via mnemonic pictures: Analysis of the presidential process.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31, 161–173.Google Scholar
  4. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985a). Maximizing what exceptional students can learn: A review of research on the keyword method and related mnemonic techniques.Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 39–45.Google Scholar
  5. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985b). Memory instruction with learning disabled adolescents.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McCormick, C. B., Levin, J. R., Cykowski, F., & Danilovics, P. (1984). Mnemonic-strategy reduction of prose-learning interference.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 145–152.Google Scholar
  7. Morrison, C. R., Levin, J. R., McGivern, J. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1985, April).Mnemonic facilitation of text-embedded science facts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. (1969). Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data.Psychological Bulletin, 72, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method.Review of Educational Research, 52, 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas E. Scruggs
    • 1
  • Margo A. Mastropieri
    • 1
  • Joel R. Levin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education, Special Education DivisionPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations