Skip to main content
Log in

Can children effectively reuse the same mnemonic pegwords?

  • Articles
  • Published:
ECTJ Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €37.37 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman, C. W. (1978).The Audubon Society field guide to North American rocks and minerals. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985b). Memory instruction with learning disabled adolescents.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. (1969). Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data.Psychological Bulletin, 72, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method.Review of Educational Research, 52, 61–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. & Levin, J.R. Can children effectively reuse the same mnemonic pegwords?. ECTJ 34, 83–88 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802580

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802580

Keywords