Building Mnemonics A Technique for Remembering Architectural Styles

Building Mnemonics: A Technique for Remembering Architectural Styles Russell N. Carney, Missouri State University Joel R. Levin, University of Arizona Alexandria C. Bain, Bailey J. Mill, Andrew C. Schneider, Rebecca E. Allinder, Sophie R. Fursa, and Kristian P. Gilliland, Missouri State University Abstract Introduction The face-name mnemonic (e. g. , Higbee, 1996) has been successfully applied to the learning of artists and their paintings (e. g. , Carney & Levin, 2014). For example, consider a painting by Czigany that depicts a woman out in the woods (see Fig. 1 below). The name, Czigany, can be recoded as a more concrete name clue, such as cigarette. The cigarette is then interacted with the painting; one might “imagine this woman smoking a cigarette (Czigany) out in the woods. ” So encoded, retrieval proceeds as follows: painting of the woman image of her smoking cigarette Czigany. We applied the face-name mnemonic (e. g. , Mc. Carty, 1980) to the learning of buildings and their architectural styles. Students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: own best method, full mnemonic (name clues + described interactive images), and partial mnemonic (name clues + instructions to generate interactive images). After a brief introduction to their strategies and paced study over 24 photos of buildings with their distinct architectural styles, students were administered recall and matching tests. Students in both face-name mnemonic conditions statistically outperformed students in the own best method condition on the matching test on both Day 1 and Day 2. Our findings illustrate the versatility of the face-name mnemonic with regard to paired-associate tasks that involve a visual stimulus prompting a verbal response. Figure 1. Painting by Czigany We wondered whether the face-name mnemonic would be beneficial in a somewhat different artwork-learning task: the learning of architectural styles. For example, take the Tudor style building (see Fig. 2). Again, one can devise a name clue that resembles part or allof the style name (e. g. , tutor for Tudor). Next, tutor is interacted with the particular building using a visual image. For example, one might “imagine a child being tutored in math by having him count the vertical boards. ” Here, Figure 2. Tudor style retrieval is as follows: building photo Image of tutoring via counting boards tutor Tudor. Although similar to previous painting studies, our application differs in two important ways: (a) the focus is on specific features of buildings, and (b) the style names are not individuals’ surnames. Method On Day 1, 80 undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: own best method, full mnemonic, and partial mnemonic. Study booklets allowed participants in the three conditions to be present in each of the three intact classes in which the experiment was conducted. Following a generic introduction, participants read a “Your Strategy” section that introduced them to their respective techniques and provided two practice items and a practice test. Following a style-name familiarization stage (paced at 11 -sec intervals), students studied the 24 to-be-learned buildings paired with their architectural styles using their assigned Table 1 Mean Percent Correct by Condition on Immediate & Delayed Tests Own Best Full Partial Method Mnemonic (n = 27) (n = 26) Day 1 Recall Exact spelling 25. 8% 29. 2% Lenient scoring 32. 4% 37. 0% 78. 5% 90. 9% 25. 0% 31. 1% 93. 6% Day 2 (2 -day delay) Matching 72. 2% References “New” buildings 46. 8% 84. 4% 54. 7% 94. 0% 55. 0% Matching ___________________________________ Note. Tests were cued by the 24 studied buildings, except for the “new” buildings test, which was based on 17 "new" buildings (a subset of the studied architectural styles). Delayed ns were 22, 23, and 23. technique: either own best method, full mnemonic, or partial mnemonic (paced at 20 -sec intervals). Following study, students were administered a recall test, followed a matching test -- both prompted by a random arrangement of the 24 studied building photos. On Day 2 (two days later), students returned to take an unannounced matching test over the 24 buildings, followed by a matching test cued by 17 “new” buildings. The study concluded with students completing a questionnaire regarding how they studied. Results Means are presented in Table 1. The three conditions were compared using an omnibus F-test, based on α =. 05. The recall tests were scored two ways – exact spelling, and then with more lenient criteria. Under both scoring systems, the three conditions’ mean recall were comparable and low (averaging less than 40%), with no statistical differences, both Fs < 1. On the Day 1 matching test, the mean performances of the mnemonic conditions were comparably high (94% and 91%) and statistically significant compared to the mean performance of the own best method condition (79%). On the immediate test, F(2, 77) = 7. 14, p <. 001; Full Mnemonic vs. Own Best Method, d =. 80, p <. 005; Partial Mnemonic vs. Own Best Method, d =. 97, p <. 001. On the delayed test, F(2, 65) = 6. 95, p =. 002; Full Mnemonic vs. Own Best Method, d =. 62, p =. 04; Partial Mnemonic vs. Own Best Method, d = 1. 11, p <. 001. No statistical significances were found between the three conditions on the “new” buildings test on Day 2, F(2, 65) = 1. 98, p =. 15. Discussion This study extends the successful application of the facename mnemonic beyond paintings, to a related task wherein architectural style names are associated with representative buildings. Indeed, students in both mnemonic conditions outperformed those in an own best method condition on matching tests on both Day 1 and Day 2. Also, lack of a mnemonic advantage on the recall test is not surprising. Prior research has suggested that additional effort (e. g. , writing practice over the style names) may be necessary to produce mnemonic name recall advantages (e. g. , Carney & Levin, 1991). And, finally, the descriptive mnemonic advantages on the “new” buildings test on Day 2 (compared to the own best method condition) did not reach significance. Mnemonic students’ performance on the “new” test might have been better had the test been administered on Day 1, but that is a question for future research. Note. Poster presented at the November, 2015, annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago. We are grateful to MSU undergraduates Katherine E. Whisenhunt, S. Cheyanne Ashe, and Megan E. Kern for their assistance in developing this poster.