The mnemonic keyword method: The effects of bidirectional retrieval ...

Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 360e371 

www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc 

The mnemonic keyword method: The effects of bidirectional 

retrieval training and of ability to image on foreign language 

vocabulary recall 

Mirella Wyra*, Michael J. Lawson, Njora Hungi 

School of Education, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 

Abstract 

The mnemonic keyword method is an effective technique for vocabulary acquisition. This study examines the effects on recall of 

word-meaning pairs of (a) training in use of the keyword procedure at the time of retrieval; and (b) the influence of the self-rated 

ability to image. The performance of students trained in bidirectional retrieval using the keyword method to learn new Spanish 

words and their English definitions was compared to that of control group students who used the standard keyword procedure. 

Data on recall performance were gathered on five occasions and analysed using multilevel analysis procedures (HLM). The retrieval 

training was a significant predictor of both backward and forward recall performance, as was the ability to make images. 

Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

Keywords: Keyword method; Vocabulary learning; Retrieval; Foreign language learning; Second language learning; Imagery 

1. Introduction 

The keyword method has been shown to be an effective procedure for the acquisition of vocabulary in foreignlanguage 

(FL) learning (Atkinson & Raugh, 1975; Levin & Pressley, 1985). This method is one of a number of procedures 

that have proved useful for the task of acquiring definitions of new foreign-language words (Ellis & Beaton, 

1993; McDaniel & Pressley, 1984), particularly for immediate recall. For longer term retention findings related to the 

effect of use of the keyword method are more mixed, with some research demonstrating growth in recall after an immediate 

decline (Lawson & Hogben, 1998) and other research showing decline in levels of recall (e.g., Avila & Sadowski, 

1996; Wang & Thomas, 1995). The mixed results seem to be associated with use of different experimental 

procedures and testing protocols. Although the beneficial effects of use of the keyword method have been demonstrated 

for a range of materials and for learners of different ages, it is only recently that researchers have begun to 

investigate the operation of the internal components of the method (e.g., Crutcher & Ericsson, 2000). In this paper 

we continue the examination of the details of the method, focusing attention on two issues: (1) use of the method 

at the time of retrieval; and (2) the influence on recall performance of individual differences in students’ self-reports 

of ability to form images. 

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ61 8 8201 3184. 

E-mail address: mirella.wyra@flinders.edu.au (M. Wyra). 

0959-4752/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.008

M. Wyra et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 360e371 

361 

For those whose first language is English, the standard keyword method for acquiring new foreign-language vocabulary 

involves a two-stage process: generation of an English word, the keyword, that is similar in sound or appearance 

to the new FL word; and development of an interactive image involving that keyword and the definition of the 

new word. For example, to learn that apio (Spanish) means celery (English), a learner could choose the English word 

‘‘ape’’ as a keyword. Then the learner might create an interactive image of an ape carrying a huge bunch of celery. For 

retrieval of the definition when given the FL word, it is commonly suggested that the processes involved in the encoding 

procedure be adapted along the following lines: the FL word is examined for presence of a keyword; a search is 

made for images involving the keyword; and any image generated is scanned to identify the most prominent feature 

(Carney & Levin, 1998; Ellis & Beaton, 1993). Such retrieval is often referred to as receptive or forward recall. If the 

direction of recall was to be from the definition to the FL word (productive or backward recall), the retrieval procedure 

would need to be further adapted to access an image of the definition and then to identify a component of the image 

that would suggest a keyword that might then be used to cue retrieval of the FL word. 

1.1. The keyword method at time of retrieval 

It is difficult to find evidence in reports of previous keyword method studies indicating that explicit retrieval training 

has been given to learners. In most reports on the keyword method it is the steps involved in encoding that are given 

most attention. 

Recently, Crutcher and Ericsson (2000, 2003) identified two models of retrieval that could be operative during 

recall of the definition of FL words that had been learned using the keyword method. In the direct access model of 

retrieval it is proposed that retrieval occurs through accessing of a simple associative link between the FL word 

and the definition, without the involvement of the mediational keyword. In contrast, in the mediational model retrieval 

results from accessing of the keyword mediator that links the FL word and its definition. Using SpanisheEnglish vocabulary 

items Crutcher and Ericsson (2000) found that the evidence available from accuracy, latency and verbal report 

data supported the mediational model of retrieval when moderate amounts of practice used in most keyword 

research is provided. When the amount of practice given to the vocabulary pairs was substantially increased, the pattern 

of recall performance was more compatible with ‘‘a process in which the English equivalent is directly accessed 

from the Spanish word with no intermediate working memory steps’’ (p. 1312). 

The results of the Crutcher and Ericsson research provide support for the description of retrieval processes involving 

keywords and images suggested by Carney and Levin (1998) and Ellis and Beaton (1993). Under typical keyword 

training conditions, which do not involve large numbers of practice trials, the keyword mediators can be predicted to 

act as cues for retrieval of the definitions. The strength of this evidence suggested that it would be of interest to see if 

the impact of the keyword method training could be enhanced by providing more attention to the use of the keyword 

procedure at time of retrieval. To this end we set out to compare the effects of a standard keyword training condition 

with one in which students were given additional training in use of the keyword procedure at time of retrieval. On the 

basis of the evidence available from Crutcher and Ericsson (2000) we predicted that further retrieval training would 

increase the level of recall beyond that associated with the typical keyword method training in which the major 

emphasis was on the encoding procedure. Compared with the typical encoding training we expected that practice 

in adaptation of the keyword elements for retrieval would increase the influence of keyword mediators and that 

this would impact positively on recall performance. 

1.2. Ability to make images 

A second issue of concern in this paper was the influence of individual differences in students’ ability to make 

images in the keyword method. Imaging is a process in which individual differences are predicted to be influential. 

Kosslyn, Van Kleeck, and Kirby’s (1990) theory of processing subsystems represents visual imagery as involving 

high-level processes that use ‘‘stored information to reconstruct the appearance of, reinterpret, and possibly anticipate 

the consequences of transforming an object.’’ (p. 42). In this theory four imagery abilities are proposed: those involved 

in generation, transformation, inspection and maintenance of the image. Individual differences are predicted in each of 

these abilities, arising from individual differences in the underlying processing subsystems. Kosslyn et al. (1990) 

argued that their experimental results provide strong support for the predictions generated from this model. Individual

362 M. Wyra et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 360e371 

differences in visual imagery are also predicted within dual coding theory in which people are seen to vary in their 

‘‘tendency and capacity to use imagery’’ (Clark & Paivio, 1991, p. 156). 

In most research involving the keyword method consideration of individual differences in imagery has focussed on 

vividness of imagery (e.g., Baddeley & Andrade, 2000; Campos, 1995a,b, 1998; Campos & Perez, 1997; Marks, 

1973). Participants have typically been asked to rate the vividness of the images they generate in common imaging 

situation using the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) developed by Marks (1973). The findings 

related to the influence on recall of individual differences in these ratings have been mixed, with positive, negative 

and close to zero correlations being reported between vividness ratings and recall (see Baddeley & Andrade, 

2000). The findings of Baddeley and Andrade (2000) suggest that this mixed pattern of associations between recall 

and vividness ratings does not arise because of the use of a self-rating procedure. Those researchers were able to 

get stable and reliable data from use of self-ratings. Of more concern to us is the narrowness of the processes being 

considered when vividness is the only dimension of imagery being rated. Because Kosslyn et al.’s (1990) model of 

imagery involves more than just a generation process that might be impacted by vividness, it is important to consider 

more of the complexity of the imagery process when self-ratings are being made. In the keyword method the influence 

of individual differences in imagery processes should be operative in the generation of a vivid image, but should also 

affect the way that the keyword and definitional components of the image are related, or transformed. For instance, in 

keyword method instructions about imaging it is commonly suggested that the definitional component should be the 

most prominent feature in the image. If such instruction is influential we might predict that all four of Kosslyn et al.’s 

(1990) subsystems would be involved across a period of acquisition and recall. In this project we were interested to see 

whether a more general self-rating of ability to image would show a stronger relationship with recall performance than 

the ratings provided by use of the VVIQ. 

Thus, in this project we sought answers to two major questions: 

1. Does explicit training in use of the keyword method for bidirectional retrieval show benefits for recall performance 

when compared to the standard keyword training? 

2. Does students’ self-rated ability to image show a significant relationship with bidirectional recall performance 

that is stronger than that associated with ratings on the VVIQ? 

Answers to these questions were sought for both directions of recall, when students were provided with the new 

Spanish word and were required to produce its English definition (forward), and when they were provided with the 

English definition and required to produce the Spanish word (backward). Although much research on the keyword 

method focuses on forward recall, in practical language use both directions of recall are essential. 

A final feature of this study is that it was carried out in regular classroom situations, with students who were 

engaged in their normal Spanish lessons. Data were gathered over multiple occasions so that the trajectories of students’ 

recall performance could be analysed using a multilevel modelling procedure that could accommodate the 

nested structure of the design. 

2. Method 

2.1. Participants 

Participants were 36 female and 41 male Year 6/7 students (age 11e12 years) in three public primary schools 

located in close proximity in the same suburb in Adelaide, South Australia. The students, who came from one class 

in each school, had been foreign-language learners since Year 2 and most had studied Spanish for five years. All 

students were taught by specialist Spanish teachers who were not familiar with the keyword method. By the end of 

the study data were available from 71 students, the remaining six students having missed a key training session. 

2.2. Materials and procedure 

Before training all students completed two imaging questionnaires, the VVIQ (Marks, 1973) and the Ability to 

Make Images (AMI) questionnaire designed for this study. The AMI questionnaire consisted of three sections, 

with items concerned with quality of mental imagery, frequency of mental imagery, and participants’ perceptions


363 

of themselves as imagers. The complete set of AMI items is shown in Appendix 1. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s 

alpha of 0.89 with all items having high item-total correlations. To prepare students for the imaging questionnaires 

they listened to a fragment of Dahl’s (1982) book ‘‘The Twits’’ and were asked to think about what they ‘‘saw in 

their mind’’ when listening to the story. Students were not aware that VVIQ and AMI would follow. 

Based on paired rank classroom achievement scores students were randomly assigned to two groups, the standard 

keyword group and the keyword retrieval group. Students participated on six occasions (see Table 1). Occasion 0 provided 

training and practice in use of the keyword method. The next two sessions, Occasions 1 and 2, involved revision of 

use of the method, then learning of the 22 SpanisheEnglish wordedefinition pairs at 20-s pace and then an immediate 

bidirectional recall test (Tests 1 and 2 in Table 1). This was designed to make the acquisition of word-meaning pairs as 

powerful as possible, within the limits of the time available. Occasions 0, 1 and 2 were conducted in small groups of 

between five and eight students. The three delayed testing sessions (Occasions 3, 4 and 5) occurred once each week 

for the next 3 weeks. All sessions were of the same duration for both the standard group and the retrieval group. 

Twenty eight concrete two- and three-syllable nouns were chosen for this study. Six words were used as instruction/ 

practice words, with the remaining 22 words being used as target words in the learning/testing part of this study. Care 

was taken to ensure that all the words were new for the students, first through consultation with teachers and then 

through pilot testing with students in a parallel Spanish program in a nearby school. 

The training instructions for students were prepared as booklets that were studied by students under the guidance of 

the researcher. The scripts in the booklets were adapted from those described by Lawson and Hogben (1998). Using 

Lawson and Hogben’s (1998) elaborated version of encoding, three main conditions were imposed on the process of 

linking the image of definition and the image of keyword into the interactive image. These conditions were (1) there 

are only two images in the interactive pictures; (2) the image of the definition has to be bigger than the image of the 

keyword image; and (3) if possible, the interactive image should be funny or unusual. 

The scripts were supplemented with three posters that contained graphical illustration of the key steps in the 

encoding (IN) and in the two directions of retrieval (OUTf for forward recall training, OUTb for backward recall training) 

uses of the keyword procedure. The standard keyword group used only the IN poster and the keyword retrieval 

group was shown all three posters. For both the standard and retrieval groups, the keyword generating and image 

generating steps were explained using the Spanish word camarera (waitress) and possible keywords and interactive 

images, and desirable qualities of the images were discussed. Students in both groups practised immediately on two 

new words (jacal, grossella) and then standard group practised encoding with another three new words (tomada, mancha, 

cazador), with students in the standard group having time to discuss the possible keywords and images throughout 

the training session. Students in the retrieval group were given additional training in how to use the keyword 

procedure to retrieve bi-directionally (forward and backward). With the assistance of the ‘‘OUT’’ posters (OUTf 

and OUTb), they practised the retrieval of all the training words jacal and grossella) and practised encoding and retrieval 

of three new words (tomada, mancha, cazador). For forward retrieval the OUTf poster identified a set of steps, 

starting with examination of the FL word for presence of a keyword, making a search for images involving the keyword 

that had the characteristics emphasised as being desirable during the keyword method training, and scanning the 

image generated to identify the most prominent component of the image, which is expected to be the definition. In the 

case of backward retrieval the OUTb poster steps began with a search for any images of the definition. The next steps 

Table 1 

Training, learning and testing procedures 

OCCASION STANDARD RETRIEVAL 

0 Keyword method training (encoding) Keyword method training (encoding) 

Bidirectional retrieval training 

1 Recap of first session (occasion 0) Recap of first session (occasion 0) 

Learning 22 SpanisheEnglish wordedefinition pairs 

Learning 22 SpanisheEnglish wordedefinition pairs 

Test 1 Test 1 

2 Learning words again Learning words again 

Test 2 Test 2 

3 Test 3 Test 3 

4 Test 4 Test 4 

5 Test 5 Test 5


involved looking for interactive images that had the characteristics emphasised as being desirable during the keyword 

method training, selection of the less prominent component of the image that represented the keyword, and generation 

and selection of the FL word. All training materials were retrieved by the researcher at the completion of each training 

session. 

In the next session, immediately after a discussion and a revision of the procedures used in the first training session, 

students in both groups learned 22 new pairs of Spanish word e English definitions using the provided keywords. The 

target word content was presented in booklets, with one Spanish word e English definition and the English keyword 

per page, e.g. camarera, waitress, keyword e camera. This learning session was paced by the researcher so that 

students had 20 s to study each page. At the end of the period of learning students were given the written immediate 

recall test, following a 5-min period of free talk that was not related to the keyword method. The order of words on the 

immediate recall test was randomized, as was the selection of words for forward (FWR) and backward recall (BWR), 

with the restriction that equal number of two- and three-syllable words were in both FWR and BWR sections of the 

test. The recall tests on Testing Occasions 1 and 2 were conducted in the small groups that were used during training 

and learning. For Testing Occasions 3, 4 and 5 testing was done in the students’ classrooms as whole classes, due to the 

need to minimize disruption of school days and to simulate the regular classroom environment. The order of words 

was the same on all tests. The results of testing were not made available to students until after the final testing occasion. 

The students’ responses on both forward and backward recall were scored on a 0e1 scale. A zero was scored for 

missing or incorrect responses, a score of 1 was given for conservatively judged correct Spanish words (in backward 

recall) and definitions (in forward recall). 

2.3. Multilevel analysis 

When dealing with multilevel data such as the data in this study, the appropriate procedure is to formulate multilevel 

models, ‘‘which enable the testing of hypotheses about effects occurring within each level and the interrelations 

among them’’ (Raudenbush & Bryk, 1994, p. 2590). Consequently, in this study, two-level models were hypothesized 

to enable the testing of hypotheses about the factors influencing forward recall (FWR) and backward recall (BWR). 

The hierarchical linear modelling program (HLM) (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2000) was used for this 

analysis. As a method for analysis of growth in nested designs, HLM is argued by Bryk and Raudenbush (1992, p. 133) 

to provide significant advantages over a technique such as repeated measures analysis. HLM provides explicit modelling 

of student growth that can describe the pattern of both within-student change and the effects on that of betweenstudent 

characteristics such as teacher or school level variables. In addition, HLM can consider the interactive effects 

across these levels (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). The multilevel analysis is argued by Bryk and Raudenbush to overcome 

the problems associated with conflation of individual and group effects. Multilevel models are also less restrictive 

in their assumptions than the more conventional repeated measures analysis of variance procedures. Of particular 

moment for longitudinal classroom research, where student attendance is often variable, is the flexibility of HLM in its 

treatment of the spacing of observations and of missing data. 

Two separate models were specified, one for FWR and the other for BWR. It was initially hypothesized that student 

recall was influenced by within-student factors (occasion of testing and learning) and between-student factors such as 

gender, ability to make images and treatment (see Table 2). The models proposed can be denoted in equation form as 

follows. 

Level-1 model 

½YŠ ij 

¼ b 0j þ b 1j ðOCCASIONÞ 1ij 

þ b 2j ðLEARNINGÞ 2ij 

þ r ij 

Level-2 model 

b 0j ¼ g 00 þ g 0gj W 0gj þ u 0j 



ð1Þ 

where Y ij is the FWR (or BWR) score pupil i at occasion j.


365 

Table 2 

Variables tested on each level of the hierarchy 

Level Variable code Variable description 

Within-student OCCASION Testing occasions (0 ¼ occasion 1,., 4¼ occasion 5) 

LEARNING Dummy variable for learning occasion (1 ¼ occasion 2; 0 ¼ occasions 1, 3, 4 and 5) 

Between-student GENDER Sex of the student (0 ¼ male; 1 ¼ female) 

YRLEVEL Year level (0 ¼ Year 6; 1 ¼ Year 7) 

ACHIEV 

Teachers ranking of students’ academic achievement in class 

(1 ¼ highest achiever,., 29¼ lowest achiever) 

TREATMNT Treatment (0 ¼ control group; 1 ¼ experimental group) 

VVIQ 

Total score for the VVIQ questionnaire i.e. vividness of images (29 ¼ lowest,., 80¼ highest) 

AMI 

Total score for AMI questionnaire i.e. ability to make images (21 ¼ lowest,., 60¼ highest) 

SCHOOL1 Dummy variable for School 1 (1 ¼ School 1; 0 ¼ Schools 2 & 3) 



For parsimony, W gj in Eq. (1) represents the control for several relevant level-2 variables (W 1j þ W 2j þ . þ W gj ) 

that describe the student characteristics, treatment and school attended by the student. Thus, W gj represents a combination 

of any of the nine level-2 variables listed in Table 2. The ‘u’ is the error term 

The first step in the multilevel analyses was to run the so-called ‘null model’ in order to estimate the amounts of 

variance available to be explained at each level of the hierarchy (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). A null model contained 

only the dependent variable (FWR or BWR) and no predictor variables were specified at any level. The second step 

was to build up the Level-1 model, that is, the within-student model. This involved adding level-1 predictors to the 

model, but without entering predictors at the second level. An approach referred to as a ‘step-up’ approach was followed 

to examine which of the level-1 variables (listed in Table 2 above) had a significant influence on FWR or BWR 

in each of the hypothesized models. Bryk and Raudenbush (1992) have recommended the step-up approach for inclusion 

of variables into the model to the alternative approach referred as ‘working-backward’ where all the possible predictors 

are included in the model and then the non-significant variables are progressively eliminated from the model. 

The final step in the multilevel analyses involved building up the model to the second level through adding the 

significant level-2 predictor variables into the model using the step-up strategy. The final model for FWR at levels 

1 and 2 was 

Level-1 model 

½FWRŠ ij 



þ r ij 

Level-2 model 

b 0j ¼ g 00 þ g 01 ðYRLEVELÞ 01j 

þ g 02 ðTREATMNTÞ 02j 

þ g 03 ðAMIÞ 03j 

þ u 0j 

b 1j ¼ g 10 þ g 11 ðSCHOOL2Þ 11j 

þ u 1j 

b 2j ¼ g 20 þ u 2j 

The final model for BWR at Levels 1 and 2 was 

Level-1 model 

ð2Þ 

½BWRŠ ij 



þ r ij 

Level-2 model 

b 0j ¼ g 00 þ g 01 ðYRLEVELÞ 01j 

þ g 02 ðTREATMNTÞ 02j 

þ g 03 ðAMIÞ 03j 

þ u 0j 

b 1j ¼ g 10 þ g 11 ðTREATMNTÞ 11j 

þ g 12 ðSCHOOL2Þ 12j 

þ u 1j 

b 2j ¼ g 20 þ u 2j 

ð3Þ


There are two issues worth noting regarding the analyses described above. First, the level-1 predictor variables 

(OCCASION and LEARNING) were grand-mean-centred in the HLM analyses, so that the intercept term would represent 

the average score for the students. Second, for both FWR and BWR, the regression coefficient of level-1 variables 

were left to vary across occasions because their reliability estimates were above the 0.05 value recommended by 

Raudenbush and Bryk (2002, p. 125) based on their extensive experience. 

3. Results 

Descriptive statistics for each group across the five testing occasions are shown in Table 3. The pattern of recall performance 

is similar for both groups in both recall directions. After Test 2 there is a small decline followed by a leveling 

off or recovery. There is, however, a noticeable difference in the level of recall between the two groups. At Test 5 for 

forward recall the retrieval group recalled about 70% of the meanings of the 11 target words, while the level for the 

standard group was about 50%. For backward recall the corresponding figures were about 40% and 19%. 

Estimates of fixed effects from the two-level models for FWR and BWR have been given in Table 4 for null, Level- 

1 and final models. The descriptive statistics of the variables included in the final models have been given at the bottom 

of Table 4. The results of the final estimation of variance components for the final FWR and BWR models and the 

results of the analyses of the variance components obtained from the corresponding null models are presented in Table 4, 

in rows ‘a’ and ‘b’, respectively. From the information in Table 4 rows ‘a’ and ‘b’, the information presented in 

rows ‘c’ to ‘f’ were calculated. A discussion of the calculations involved here is to be found in Raudenbush and 

Bryk (2002, pp. 69e95). The results in Tables 4 and 5 are discussed next in two sub-sections. 

3.1. Fixed effects 

For the null model, the results in Tables 4 and 5 show that the predicted mean FWR score for the students is 6.16 

with a variance of 10.47. In forward recall, most students were expected to remember between about three and nine 

words. The corresponding expectation for backward recall was between one and five words. Thus, students were much 

better in forward recall than in backward recall, which is consistent with expectation and findings from other studies 

(Ellis & Beaton, 1993). 

For the level-1 and final model, the results in Table 4 show that both forward and backward recall were positively 

influenced by occasion of testing (OCCASION) and learning (LEARNING). For example, based on the level-1 model, 

the results in Table 4 show that, on average, recall increased at a rate of 0.56 and 0.49 words per occasion for FWR and 

BWR, respectively. In addition, the results indicate that recall was significantly better immediately after learning 

regardless of the direction of recall. On average, for the occasion immediately after learning, recall was better by 

1.11 and 1.65 words for FWR and BWR, respectively, compared to recall at the non-learning occasions. 

In addition, for both FWR and BWR final models, the results in Table 4 show that recall was significantly influenced 

by Year level (YRLEVEL), treatment (TREATMNT) and ability to make images (AMI). On average, Year 7 students 

outperformed Year 6 students by 1.56 and 0.89 words for forward and backward recall, respectively, while the experimental 

group outperformed the control group by 1.68 and 1.83 words for forward and backward recall, respectively. 

The significant effect of treatment indicated that there was a substantial benefit associated with the retrieval training. 

The impact of the treatment on forward recall was to move the mean for the group from 40.7% to 56%. The 

Table 3 

Descriptive statistics 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

Forward recall score (FWR) 

Standard group 3.24 2.92 5.73 3.40 5.12 3.39 5.12 3.46 5.54 3.43 

Retrieval group 5.80 3.17 7.31 3.61 7.69 3.36 8.06 3.59 7.92 3.64 

Backward recall score (BWR) 

Standard group 0.76 1.23 3.12 2.25 1.79 1.90 2.00 2.11 2.11 2.03 

Retrieval group 2.23 1.99 5.00 2.61 4.39 3.15 5.09 3.11 4.39 2.43


367 

Table 4 

Final estimation of fixed effects for the FWR and BWR models 

Variable Null model Level-1 model Final model 

Coefficient SE P-value Coefficient SE P-value Coefficient SE P-value 

FWR 

Level-2 Intercept, g 00 6.16 0.39 0.00 6.16 0.39 0.00 4.48 0.46 0.00 

(Between-student) YRLEVEL, g 01 1.56 0.66 0.02 

TREATMNT, g 02 1.68 0.63 0.01 

AMI, g 03 0.12 0.03 0.00 

Level-1 OCCASION, g 10 0.56 0.08 0.00 0.43 0.08 0.00 

(Within student) Interaction with SCHOOL2, g 11 0.36 0.15 0.02 

LEARNING, g 20 1.11 0.22 0.00 1.11 0.22 0.00 

BWR 

Level-2 Intercept, g 00 3.07 0.28 0.00 3.07 0.28 0.00 1.67 0.25 0.00 

(Between-student) YRLEVEL, g 01 0.89 0.39 0.02 

TREATMNT, g 02 1.83 0.43 0.00 

AMI, g 03 0.06 0.02 0.01 

Level-1 OCCASION, g 10 0.49 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.06 0.00 

(Within-student) Interaction with TREATMNT, g 11 0.26 0.10 0.01 

Interaction with SCHOOL2, g 12 0.30 0.08 0.00 

LEARNING, g 20 1.65 0.17 0.00 1.65 0.17 0.00 

Variable Level-1 descriptive statistics Level-2 descriptive statistics 

N Mean SD Min. Max. Variable J Mean SD Min. Max. 

FWR 344 6.18 3.67 0 11 YRLEVEL 71 0.54 0.50 0 1 

BWR 344 3.11 2.74 0 11 TREATMNT 71 0.51 0.50 0 1 

OCCASION 355 2.00 1.42 0 4 AMI 71 44.82 8.99 21 60 

LEARNING 355 0.20 0.40 0 1 SCHOOL2 71 0.37 0.49 0 1 

corresponding figures for backward recall were 15.2% and 31.8%. The effect for backward recall is of particular note 

given the very low level of recall for non-treatment students in this study and the levels of backward recall that has 

been found in other research (Ellis & Beaton, 1993). In addition, students with higher AMI scores outperformed their 

counterparts in both forward and backward recall. The ability to make images was associated with slightly improved 

recall, the effect being stronger for forward than backward recall. 

The results in Table 4 also show significant cross-level interaction effects (a) between OCCASION and SCHOOL2 

for both FWR and BWR, and (b) between OCCASION and TREATMNT for BWR. Fig. 1 is a graphical representation 

of the interaction effect between OCCASION and TREATMNT for backward recall. The co-ordinates for this graph 

were calculated using the procedure described by Aiken and West (1996) and Lietz (1996). Fig. 1 shows that, when 

other factors are equal, time had more impact on backward recall of the experimental group than on backward recall of 

the control group. Thus, the experimental group was on average better than the control group in backward recall and 

also improved at a greater rate in backward recall than the control group. 

Table 5 

Variance explained in the final FWR and BWR models 

FWR 

BWR 

Within Between Total Within Between Total 

(a) Null model 2.95 10.47 13.43 2.39 5.01 7.40 

(b) Final model 1.27 7.22 1.43 3.35 

(c) Variance available 22.0% 78.0% 32.3% 67.7% 

(d) Variance explained 57.0% 31.1% 40.2% 33.1% 

(e) Total variance explained 12.5% 24.3% 36.8% 13.0% 22.5% 35.4% 

(f) Variance left unexplained 9.5% 53.7% 63.2% 19.3% 45.3% 64.6%


13 

12 

Experimental Group 

Backward recall (BWR) score 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

Control Group 

4 

3 

Early Occasion 

Occasion 

Later Occasion 

Fig. 1. Impact of the interaction effect of occasion with treatment on backward recall. 

3.2. Variance partitioning and variance explained 

The results in Table 5 show that the percentages of variances available at levels 1 and 2 were 22.0 and 78.0, 

respectively, for FWR, and 32.3 and 67.7, respectively, for BWR. These percentages of variance of scores at the various 

levels of the hierarchy are the maximum amounts of variance available at those levels that could be explained in 

subsequent analyses. Thus, there was markedly more variance to be explained at the between-student level (the treatment 

level) than at the within-student level. 

As it can be seen from the results in Table 5, the predictors included in the final FWR model explained 57.0% of 

22.0% variance available at the within-student level and that is equal to 12.5% of the total variance explained at the 

within-student level. Similarly, the predictors included in the final FWR model explained 24.3% (that is, 31.1% of 

78.0%) at the between-student level. Thus, the total variance explained by the predictors included in the final FWR 

model was 12.5 þ 24.3 ¼ 36.8%, which left 63.2% of the total variance unexplained in this model. Likewise, the predictors 

included in the final BWR model explained 35.4% of the variance, which left 64.6% unexplained. The large 

amounts of variance left unexplained indicate that there are other important within student, between-student and probably 

class or school level factors influencing recall that were not included in the models developed in this study. 

4. Discussion 

In this study we set out to examine effects associated with two internal components of the keyword method as it has 

been used for FL vocabulary acquisition: explicit training in use of the keyword method for retrieval, and students’ 

self-rated ability to image. The effects of these variables were examined on forward and backward recall. 

The results indicate that training in the use of the keyword method at the time of retrieval did offer an educationally 

meaningful advantage for recall performance. This finding suggests that future training involving the keyword method 

should include explicit attention to the use of the procedure for both encoding and retrieval. 

In addition, the rating for ability to make images made a small but significant contribution to recall performance. 

There is, therefore, a basis for further investigation of the influence of training in making images on recall in the keyword 

method studies. 

The results show evidence of growth in students’ vocabulary. Recall scores for both forward and backward recall 

increased across the recall testing occasions. There was a small positive impact across occasion for both directions of 

recall. This finding parallels the results observed by Lawson and Hogben (1998) in their study with high school


369 

students learning Italian. As was the case in that study the positive impact of learning is strongest for recall following 

the initial learning occasions. The positive slope across the multiple occasions used in the current study is noteworthy 

given other research described earlier that has shown decline in recall when a smaller number of recall occasions has 

been used. 

There was a significant impact of the retrieval training on recall score compared to that associated with the standard 

keyword training. Again the size of the benefit from retrieval training was as of practical significance. When compared 

with the traditional keyword training, reports of which give most emphasis to encoding, the relatively simple explicit 

training in use of the keyword procedure for retrieval was associated with successful recall of not only definitions 

(FWR) but also with successful recall of Spanish words (BWR). The fact that the impact of the retrieval training 

occurred for both forward and backward recall is also important because it indicates that students gained benefit 

from this additional training for both receptive and productive vocabulary use. 

The difference in level of recall in forward and backward directions mirrors that found in previous research (Ellis & 

Beaton, 1993). Ellis and Beaton (1993) suggest that backward recall is more complex because there are ‘‘many more 

competing active paths in production [backward recall] than in reception [forward recall].’’ (p. 549). It is not clear 

from their description what these authors meant by ‘active paths’. Examination of the descriptions of retrieval processes 

involved in forward and backward directions suggests some ways in which the demands on the learner could 

be different in the two directions. We base this argument on the analysis of the forward and backward retrieval processes 

shown in Fig. 2. We think that the number of associations is relatively similar in both directions of recall. The 

learner has to retrieve an image of the definition (in backward recall, see Fig. 2 step 1B) or an image of the keyword (in 

forward recall, see Fig. 2 step 2F). Each task involving native language words would potentially stimulate comparable 

number of activations. Alternatively, Ellis and Beaton suggest that the strictness of scoring of acceptable responses is 

likely to act to disadvantage recall performance in the backward direction. 

In Fig. 2 the central row of boxes identifies phases of representation and the arrows in both directions indicate broad 

processes that bring about changes in representation. Thus, as described in the forward path legend at the top of the 

figure, process 1F involves scanning of the foreign word to search for and select the keyword that was used during 

encoding. Other process descriptions in the forward direction and those in the backward direction are given in the 

respective legends in the Fig. 2. 

The model set out in Fig. 2 suggests that the number of competing active paths would be the same for the forward 

and backward recall. In FWR demand on the student in terms of the number of possible paths that could be activated 

would seem to be greatest in steps 2F, 3F and 5F. For BWR, steps 1B, 2B and 5B would also involve high demand 

FORWARD PATH 

1F – scanning FW for keyword (KW), generating and/or searching, selecting 

2F – searching for pictorial image/s of KW 

3F – searching for interaction (as per encoding and retrieval training conditions), generating and/or searching, selecting 

4F – selecting the pictorial image of definition from the (as per encoding and retrieval training conditions) 

5F – interpretation of image to recall the definition 

1F 2F 3F 4F 5F 

FOREIGN WORD 

KW 

IMAGE 

OF KW 

IMAGE 

OF 

INTERA 

CTION 

IMAGE 

OF 

DEFINITION 

DEFINITION 

apio 

5B 

ape 

4B 

3B 2B 1B 

celery 

BACKWARD PATH 

1B – searching for pictorial image of definition, generating and/or searching, selecting 

2B – searching for image of interaction (as per encoding and retrieval training conditions) 

3B – selecting the pictorial image of keyword (KW) (as per encoding and retrieval training conditions) 

4B – interpretation of the image of KW to recall the image of the spelling of KW 

5B – searching for or generating, selecting the foreign word 

Fig. 2. Retrieval phases and broad processes involved in forward and backward directions.


associated with making a selection from a potentially large number of alternatives. However, in the typical keyword 

situation, where recall is required across relatively short periods of time, the number of possibilities that need to be 

scanned in steps 2F, 3F, 5F, 1B and 2B would seem to be reduced. This reduction is argued to arise from the fact that 

the interactive images have been set up recently in training and so may be in a relatively high state of activation. The 

same argument does not appear to be applicable to step 5B. When the students get to this point they must use the 

keyword to scan their FL lexicon. Likely of most importance at this step for novice learners of the FL is that there 

are relatively few words that are strongly established in the FL lexicon, so that the keyword does not act as a strong 

cue for identification of the FL word. This analysis provides an alternative to that of Ellis and Beaton (1993) who 

suggested that there is a greater number of associations activated by the native language definition relative to the 

number activated by presentation of a foreign-language word so that a sort of fan effect (Anderson, 2000) weakens 

the backward link. Of course both analyses are speculative at the moment and need to be examined in further 

research. 

The second major point of interest involved the impact of learners’ ability to form images on recall in the keyword 

method. The Ability to Make Images questionnaire designed for this study has been used to measure the ability to 

make images in a broader sense than the frequently used VVIQ and it has been found that students who have high 

rated ability to make images outperformed the students with low rated ability to make images in both forward and 

backward recalls. Although the size of the effect associated with AMI rating is relatively small, it is of interest 

here that the more general rating of ability to image emerged as a stronger predictor than did the more commonly 

used VVIQ. 

The results observed here add to the research findings that show that the keyword method is a useful procedure for 

acquisition of vocabulary in FL learning. In particular the findings associated with the treatment effect observed here 

suggest that if keyword method training does not give emphasis to use of the procedure at time of retrieval it will not 

maximise its impact on both forward and backward recall. 

Acknowledgements 

This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council. We acknowledge the cooperation of 

the principals, teachers and students of the schools who participated in the project. 

Appendix 1. The ability to make images questionnaire (AMI) 

Image quality Not at all Vaguely Some of it Most of it Everything as 

in a movie 

1 2 3 4 5 

When someone tells you or reads to you a story do 

you see in your mind what happens in the story? 

When you read a story do you see in your mind 

what happens in the story? 

Imaging frequency Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 

1 2 3 4 5 

When someone tells you or reads to you a story 

do you see in your mind what happens 

in the story? 

When you read a story do you see in your 

mind what happens in the story? 

Do you like to imagine when reading? 

Do you like to imagine when listening? 

Are you a dreamer? 

Do you like to imagine when watching? 

Do you like to imagine when doing 

nothing/daydreaming?


371 

Appendix 1 (continued) 

Imaging performance Not at all Not so good Reasonably good Good Very good 

1 2 3 4 5 

Are you good at imagining things/objects/animals? 

Are you good at imagining people? 

Are you good at imagining actions/what 

happens/what people do? 

References 

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implication (5th ed.). New York: Worth. 

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1996). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology, 104, 126e133. 

Avila, E., & Sadowski, M. (1996). Exploring new applications of the keyword method to acquire English vocabulary. Language Learning, 46(3), 

379e395. 

Baddeley, A. D., & Andrade, J. (2000). Working memory and the vividness of imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 

126e145. 

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 

Campos, A. (1995a). Imagery, concreteness, emotionality, meaningfulness, and pleasantness of words. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 80(3, Pt 1), 

867e880. 

Campos, A. (1995b). Twenty-two years of the VVIQ. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19(3e4), 129e131. 

Campos, A. (1998). A measure of visual imaging capacity: a preliminary study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 87(3, Pt 1), 1012e1014. 

Campos, A., & Perez, M. J. (1997). Mnemonic images and associated pair recall. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21(3e4), 73e82. 

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Do mnemonic memories fade as time goes by? Here’s looking anew! Contemporary Educational Psychology, 

23, 276e297. 

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149e210. 

Crutcher, R. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2000). The role of mediators in memory retrieval as a function of practice: controlled mediation to direct 

access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26(5), 1297e1317. 

Crutcher, R. J., & Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The effects of practice on mnemonic encodings involving prior knowledge and semantic memory: reply 

to Rickard and Bajic (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1387e1389. 

Dahl, R. (1982). The twits. Harmondsworth: Puffin. 

Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language vocabulary: imagery keyword mediators and phonological shortterm 

memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 533e558. 

Kosslyn, S. M., Van Kleeck, M. H., & Kirby, K. N. (1990). A neurologically plausible model of individual differences in visual mental imagery. In 

P. J. Hampson, D. F. Marks, & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), Imagery: Current developments (pp. 39e77). London: Routledge. 

Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1998). Learning and recall of foreign-language vocabulary: effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed 

recall. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 179e194. 

Levin, J. R., & Pressley, M. (1985). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What’s fact, what’s fiction. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual differences in 

cognition, Vol. 2 (pp. 145e172). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 

Lietz, P. (1996). Changes in reading comprehension across culture and over time. Minister: Waxman. 

Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17e24. 

McDaniel, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1984). Putting the keyword method in context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 598e609. 

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1994). Hierarchical linear models. In T. Husén, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of 

education: Research and studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 2590e2596). Oxford: Pergamon Press. 

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage 

Publications. 

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2000). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: 

Scientific Software International. (Version 5.01.2067.1). 

Wang, A. Y., & Thomas, M. H. (1995). Effect of keywords on long-term retention: help or hindrance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 

468e475.

The mnemonic keyword method: The effects of bidirectional retrieval ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?