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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

M. Wyra et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 360e371 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%
368 M. Wyra et al. / Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 360e371 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
Page 1 and 2: Learning and Instruction 17 (2007)
Page 3 and 4: 362 M. Wyra et al. / Learning and I
Page 7: 366 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?