Re-examining the "Limitations" of the Mnemonic Keyword Method. Working Paper No. 329
Sparad:
| I publikationen: | ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) (Jul 1982), p. 1-36 |
|---|---|
| Huvudupphov: | |
| Övriga upphov: | |
| Utgiven: | |
| Ämnen: | |
| Länkar: | Citation/Abstract Full text outside of ProQuest |
| Taggar: |
Inga taggar, Lägg till första taggen!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 63282835 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 035 | |a 63282835 | ||
| 045 | 2 | |b d19820701 |b d19820731 | |
| 084 | |a ED269732 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pressley, Michael | |
| 245 | 1 | |a Re-examining the "Limitations" of the Mnemonic Keyword Method. Working Paper No. 329 | |
| 260 | |c Jul 1982 | ||
| 513 | |a Report | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a A series of four experiments explored a discrepancy in the findings of research regarding the use of the keyword method for learning vocabulary, specifically whether the presentation method (paced vs. unpaced) or the treatment administration (subjects in groups vs. subjects as individuals) determines its effectiveness. Two experiments involved individual college undergraduates whose task was to learn Spanish vocabulary items, while the other two experiments involved small groups of high school students who were to learn lists of low-frequency English nouns. In each of the four experiments, there were two experimenter-paced groups--one instructed to use the keyword method and the other provided with no specific strategy--and two subject-paced groups, also using either the keyword or no specific strategy. The results of these experiments are as follows: (1) under the subjects-as-individuals condition, reliable keyword effects were detected for both paced and unpaced subjects; and (2) under the subjects-in-groups condition, the recall of keyword users was reliably lower than that of the control subjects regardless of presentation method. These results suggest that it is the method-of-treatment administration (individual vs. group) rather than the method-of-item presentation (paced vs. unpaced) that is the reason for the failure of previous research to obtain positive keyword effects. They also suggest a need for investigators to redirect their efforts from studying pacing-interaction limitations to finding a solution to the group-administration difficulties apparent in the earlier research. (LLZ) | |
| 653 | |a Associative Learning | ||
| 653 | |a High School Students | ||
| 653 | |a High Schools | ||
| 653 | |a Higher Education | ||
| 653 | |a Learning Strategies | ||
| 653 | |a Mnemonics | ||
| 653 | |a Paired Associate Learning | ||
| 653 | |a Reading Research | ||
| 653 | |a Recall (Psychology) | ||
| 653 | |a Second Language Instruction | ||
| 653 | |a Second Language Learning | ||
| 653 | |a Teaching Methods | ||
| 653 | |a Undergraduate Students | ||
| 653 | |a Vocabulary Development | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a And Others | |
| 773 | 0 | |t ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) |g (Jul 1982), p. 1-36 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t ERIC | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/63282835/abstract/embedded/75I98GEZK8WCJMPQ?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full text outside of ProQuest |u http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED269732 |