More on How (And How Not) to Remember the States and Their Capitals

Levin, Joel R.; Berry, Jill; Miller, Gloria E.; Bartell, Nina P.

doi:10.1086/461275

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Let us now consider the second point, namely that strategy breakdowns occur as one moves from imagining what works to assessing what works. One particularly salient example comes from the domain of mnemonic strategy instruction, where it was found that a commercially available set of materials for remembering the states and their capitals (Lucas, 1978) did not work at all as intended when subjected to empirical test (Levin, Berry, Miller, & Bartell, 1982). The problem in that particular case turned out to be the idiosyncratic strategies generated by Lucas, as well as the complexity of those strategies when targeted for elementary school children.…”

Section: Cognitive Principle 4: Thought-to-be-effective Learning Stramentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy Instruction

Levin¹

1986

Educational Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cognitive Principle 4: Thought-to-be-effective Learning Stramentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy Instruction

Levin¹

1986

Educational Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The suggestion to use multiple keywords (e.g., "frog on air" for Fragonard) may actually work against the effectiveness of a mnemonic strategy. Although the multiple-keyword issue was not addressed directly here, our experiments seem to suggest that the simpler single-keyword approach is preferable to one in which multiple keywords are "forced" to match every syllable (for experimental evidence, see Levin et al, 1982). At the same time, we recognize that in the case of artist recall, multiple keywords may be associated with a trade-off between reduced meaningfulness and enhanced phonetic correspondence that enables complete-name production.…”

Section: Effective Abstract and Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In addition, the compound images associated with them are often complex and nonmeaningful. In a comparison of Lucas's (1978) multiple-keyword materials for learning the capital cities of the United States with simpler single-keyword materials, Levin, Berry, Miller, and Bartell (1982) found that the latter resulted in significantly higher performance. Although not a direct test of the single-versus-multiple-keyword issue, such results suggest that the use of single keywords is preferable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mnemonic Learning of Artists and Their Paintings

Carney

Levin

Morrison

1988

American Educational Research Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were conducted in which the "face-name" mnemonic (e.g., McCarty, 1980) was adapted for use in learning 30 painting/ artist associations, the kind of task one faces in an art appreciation class. While control groups used their "own best method" for learning who painted what paintings, subjects in mnemonic conditions were given keywords for the artists' names and meaningful interactions between corresponding keywords and paintings. In one mnemonic condition, penand-ink sketches of the interactions were provided. A second mnemonic condition provided verbal decriptions of the interactions. Undergraduate subjects in mnemonic conditions were better able to match artists and their paintings. Further, subjects using the verbal version of the mnemonic strategy were somewhat superior in an artist-recall task. Similar patterns of results were found on immediate and 2-day delayed performance tasks. Implications of the results, and considerations of the weaker recall effects, are included in the discussion.Much research over the last few years has demonstrated the efficacy of mnemonic strategies in both laboratory and applied situations. In particular, the "keyword" method (Atkinson, 1975) has repeatedly been shown to facilitate students' acquisition of factual information, including vocabulary learning and prose learning (e.g., Levin, 1985). A less researched mnemonic technique is the "face-name" mnemonic, a useful

show abstract

“…Internal mnemonic cues have long supported learning in education and do improve learning of foreign language vocabulary (Atkinson & Raugh, 1975), state capitals (J. R. Levin, Kessler Berry, Miller, & Bartell, 1982), and even information presented in prose (Shriberg, 1982). College students consistently report generating mnemonic cuesrhymes, acronyms, songs, and stories-to remember connections among important ideas (Van Etten, Freebern, & Pressley, 1997).…”

Section: Kinds Of Self-generated Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Generated Memory Cues: Effective Tools for Learning, Training, and Remembering

Tullis

Finley

2018

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generating memory cues can expand memory abilities and support learning across a broad range of domains. Using technology can help. Key Points • • Self-generated memory cues can help students, trainees, older adults, and others remember difficult information, even more than generic memory cues. • • Self-generated memory cues elaborate information in meaningful and distinct ways. • • Instructions, the importance of the information, and the encoding context change the kind of cues that people generate. • • Technology can be harnessed to improve self-generated cues. • • Memory cues can benefit memory at school, in training, and during older ages.

show abstract

More on How (And How Not) to Remember the States and Their Capitals

Cited by 12 publications

References 5 publications

Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy Instruction

Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy Instruction

Mnemonic Learning of Artists and Their Paintings

Self-Generated Memory Cues: Effective Tools for Learning, Training, and Remembering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About