Remembering and Applying Course Content Mnemonically Revisited Russell

Remembering and Applying Course Content Mnemonically, Revisited Russell N. Carney, Missouri State University Joel R. Levin, University of Arizona My Q. Vu, Rebecca E. Knoph, Katherine E. Whisenhunt, S. Cheyanne Ashe, and Megan E. Kern, Missouri State University Abstract Introduction Extensive research has shown the mnemonic keyword method to be an effective memory aid (e. g. , Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982; Worthen & Hunt, 2011). Although mnemonic techniques are often criticized as facilitating only rote memory (i. e. , tasks related to the knowledge level of Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy), a handful of mnemonic studies have featured outcome measures requiring higher-order thinking (e. g. , Carney & Levin, 2003; Carney & Levin, 2008; Richmond, Carney & Levin, 2011). To further examine this issue, we applied the technique to the learning of 22 psychologists and their concepts, and then administered tests, Including a multiple-choice test that required higherorder thinking. Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) Method Fifty-seven undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of two mnemonic conditions (One Keyword or Two Keywords), or to an Own Best Method control group. Following a generic introduction, students read a section that described their strategy, and then took a practice test. After a name familiarization stage (at 10 -sec intervals), and a concept familiarization stage (again, at 10 -sec intervals), students studied the 22 name-concept pairs using their respective techniques at 20 -sec intervals. Students using the One-Keyword strategy studied by interacting a provided keyword for the psychologist’s name with their concept in a visual image (see Fig. 2). Asch (ashes) Conformity Interact ashes with conformity. Figure 2. One-Keyword Strategy Students in the Two-Keyword condition studied by interacting a keyword for the psychologist’s name with a keyword for their concept (see Fig. 3). Asch (ashes) Conformity (convict) Interact ashes with convict. Figure 3. Two Keyword Strategy Finally, students in the Own Best Method condition were instructed to use their best method to associate each psychologist’s name and concept (see Fig. 4). Asch Conformity Figure 4. Own Best Method Mnemonic strategies are often criticized as facilitating only rote memory. However, a few studies have successfully applied the keyword method to tasks requiring higher-order thinking. To further examine this, we randomly assigned participants to one of two mnemonic conditions (i. e. , a single provided keyword, or two provided keywords), or to an own best method group. Students used their respective techniques to study 22 psychologists and their concepts. On both immediate and delayed psychologist-concept matching tests, students in both mnemonic conditions statistically outperformed control participants. Further, students in both mnemonic conditions also outperformed control participants on a multiple-choice test requiring higher-order thinking (with one exception). 1. Sally wants to be like her friends, so she makes a point of dressing like them. This is an example of whose theory? A. Tolman B. Gilovich C. Adler D. Asch Figure 5. Example of multiple-choice question requiring higherorder thinking, or “Comprehension” in Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy. Participants returned after a two-day delay to take unannounced matching and multiple-choice tests (the same tests as on Day 1). Table 1 Mean Percent Correct by Condition on Immediate & Delayed Tests ________________________________________________ Own Best Method (n = 18) One Keyword (n = 19) Two Keywords (n = 20) ________________________________________________ Day 1 Matching (22 items) M/C (12 items) Day 2 (5 -day delay) Matching (22 items) M/C (12 items) Study over the 22 name/concept pairs was followed by a 3 -min unrelated filler task. Participants were then administered a matching test over the 22 studied items (i. e. , questions at the “knowledge” level). The matching test listed a random arrangement of the numbered concepts down the left side of the page, and an alphabetically arranged list of the psychologists’ names down the right side of the page (labeled A – W). The matching test was followed by a 12 item multiple-choice test designed to get at higher-order learning (i. e. , above the “knowledge” level; see Fig. 5). 56. 3% 53. 7% 88. 8% 81. 1% 84. 8% 75. 8% 48. 6% 57. 3% 72. 7% 77. 6% 81. 8% 75. 0% ________________________________________________ Note. M/C = multiple choice questions getting at higher-order thinking. Two-day delayed Ns were 16, and 16, respectively. References Carney, R. N. , & Levin, J. R. (2003). Promoting higher-order learning benefits by building lower-order mnemonic connections. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 563 -576. Carney, R. N. , & Levin, J. R. (2008). Conquering mnemonophobia, with help from three practical measures of memory and application. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 176 -183. Pressley, M. , Levin, J. R. , & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61 -91. Richmond, A. S. , Carney, R. N. , & Levin, J. R. (2011). Got neurons? Learning neuroscience terms mnemonically, with a focus on retention and higherorder thinking. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 40 -45. Worthen, J. B. , & Hunt, R. R. (2011). Mnemonology: Mnemonics for the 21 st century. New York: Psychology Press. Results A Type I error probability ( ) of. 05 was applied to a 3 x 4 factorial ANOVA, and to each of the post-hoc statistical tests. Overall, both mnemonic groups of students outperformed the control group, F(2, 45) = 7. 26, p =. 002, η 2 =. 21. Both mnemonic groups separately outperformed the control group on each test at p <. 05 using a Bonferroni correction -- with the exception of the Keyword group on the delayed multiple-choice test (p =. 14). The two mnemonic groups did not perform significantly different from one another on any test (p >. 999). There was no interaction effect between the group and the test being taken (matching versus multiple-choice) F(6, 135) = 1. 83, p =. 10, η 2 =. 01. Discussion As we have come to expect, on both immediate and delayed tests, students in the keyword mnemonic groups outperformed their own best method counterparts on matching tests whose items got at the “knowledge” level (i. e. , rote memory). Further, and importantly, keyword mnemonic students also outperformed our control group on a multiple-choice test involving higher-level learning (i. e. , above the “knowledge” level) on both immediate and delayed tests (with one exception). These findings add to a growing list of studies demonstrating that higher-order benefits can result from the use of mnemonic strategies. Poster presented at the November, 2016, meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston. We wish to thank Julie presented Bauman for this poster. Poster ather the assistance November, with 2016, meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston. We wish to thank Julie Bauman for her assistance with this poster.