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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: Learning and Instruction 17 (2007)
Page 5 and 6: 364 M. Wyra et al. / Learning and I

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?