Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:29:07.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presentation of Keywords by Means of Interactive Drawings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Alfredo Campos ,
Ángeles Amor  and
María Ángeles González
Alfredo Campos*
Affiliation:
University of Santiago de Compostela
Ángeles Amor
Affiliation:
University of A Coruña
María Ángeles González
Affiliation:
University of A Coruña
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alfredo Campos, Facultad de Psicología.Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. 15782 Santiago de Compostela (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the main outstanding problems in keyword mnemotechnics is whether this technique is more effective when the subjects generate their own keywords, or when the keywords are supplied by the experimenter. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. An alternative method has recently been suggested, in which the keywords are generated by the subjects' peers. In the present study we aimed to investigate whether immediate or delayed recall are affected by keyword generation method (experimenter or peer generation). We also aimed to determine whether the method of keyword generation affects imaging capacity as evaluated by questionnaires or spatial tests. A total of 377 secondary-school students were selected and divided into four groups. All subjects were presented with 30 Latin words. Additionally, the subjects in Group 1 were presented with bizarre images, while the subjects of Group 2 were presented with normal images, in both cases representing the keywords selected by peers as interacting with the Latin words. The subjects in Groups 3 and 4 were likewise presented with normal or bizarre images, respectively, but representing the keywords selected by the experimenters. The subjects' imaging capacity was evaluated by means of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) and the Spatial Test of Primary Mental Abilities (ST-PMA). The results were analysed by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with three factors (ST-PMA imaging capacity, 2 levels; VVIQ imaging capacity, 2 levels; and mnemotechnic method, 4 levels) and dependent variables immediate recall and delayed recall. All three factors influenced recall. Subsequent univariate analyses of variance indicated that subjects with high ST-PMA score and subjects with high VVIQ score showed better immediate and delayed recall than subjects with low ST-PMA score and subjects with low VVIQ score. Mnemotechnic method (i.e. whether keywords are generated by the experimenter or by peers) significantly affected immediate recall but not delayed recall.

Uno de los problemas sin resolver en la mnemotecnia de la palabra clave es si ésta resulta más eficaz cuando son los sujetos los que generan sus propias palabras clave o cuando son facilitadas por el experimentador. Los dos métodos tienen ventajas e inconvenientes. Recientemente se ha propuesto una alternativa que consiste en que sean compañeros de los sujetos los que elaboren las palabras clave, alternativa que parece eficaz. En esta investigación se deseaba saber si existía diferencia en el recuerdo inmediato y en el demorado cuando la palabra clave, reforzada con dibujos normales y raros, es elaborada por los experimentadores o cuando es elaborada por compañeros de los sujetos que participan en la investigación. También se deseaba saber si afectaba al recuerdo la capacidad de los sujetos de formar imágenes mentales cuando ésta se evalúa a través de cuestionarios y de pruebas espaciales. Se seleccionó una muestra de 377 estudiantes de ESO que se distribuyeron en cuatro grupos. A todos los sujetos se les presentaron 30 palabra latinas, pero además, al primer grupo se le presentaron dibujos raros, y al segundo se le presentaron dibujos normales, confeccionados con las palabras clave generadas por los compañeros en interacción con el significado de las palabras latinas. A los grupos 3 y 4 también se le presentaron dibujos normales y raros, respectivamente, pero confeccionados con las palabras clave generadas por los experimentadores. También se evaluó la capacidad de los sujetos de formar imágenes mentales a través de un cuestionario, el Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) y de un test espacial, la Escala Espacial del Test de Aptitudes Mentales Primarias (ST-PMA). Se efectuó un Análisis de Varianza (MANOVA) de 2 (ST-PMA capacidad de imagen) × 2 (VVIQ capacidad de imagen) × 4 (método mnemotécnico). Las variables dependientes fueron el recuerdo inmediato y el demorado. Las tres variables influyeron en el recuerdo. Los posteriores ANOVAs indicaron que los sujetos altos en PMA y los sujetos en VVIQ tuvieron un mejor recurdo inmediato y retardado que los sujetos bajos en PMA y en VVIQ. El método mnemotécnico influyó en el recuerdo inmediato, pero no en el retardado.

Keywords

keyword methodmnemonicdrawingsimagerymétodo de la palabra clavemnemónicodibujosimagen
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , November 2002 , pp. 102 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreoff, G.R., & Yarmey, A.D. (1976). Bizarre imagery and associative learning: A confirmation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R.C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Levin, J. R., Kiewra, K. A., Meyers, T., Kim, S., Atkinson, L. A., Renhandya, W. A., & Hwang, Y. (1999). Matrix and mnemonic text-processing adjuncts: comparing and combining their components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergfeld, V.A., Choate, L.S., & Kroll, N.E. (1982). The effect of bizarre imagery on memory as a function of delay: Reconfirmation of the interaction effect. Journal of Mental Imagery, 6, 141–158.Google Scholar
Campos, A. (1995). Twenty-two years of the VVIQ. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 129–131.Google Scholar
Campos, A. (1998). A measure of visual imaging capacity: A preliminary study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1012–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campos, A., Chiva, M., & Moreau, M. (2000). Alexithymia and mental imagery. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 787–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, A., & González, M.A. (1994). Viveza de las imágenes mentales y rendimiento académico en estudiantes de Bellas Artes, Ciencias y Letras. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 26, 69–81.Google Scholar
Campos, A., González, M. A., & Amor, A. (2000). Rendimiento académico en tecnología: el valor de las imágenes mentales. In Santos, M.A. (Ed.), A educación en perspectiva (pp. 379–387). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Campos, A., González, M.A., & Amor, A. (2001). Different strategies for keyword generation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Campos, A., González, M. A., & Amor, A. (2002). The Spanish version of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ): Factor structure and internal consistency reliability. Psychological Reports, 90, 503–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, A., & Pérez, M.J. (1996). La estrategia de imágenes mentales extrañas como ayuda al recuerdo de pares asociados. Apuntes de Psicología, 48, 41–50.Google Scholar
Campos, A., & Pérez, M.J. (1997). Mnemonic images and associated pair recall. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21, 73–82.Google Scholar
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Do mnemonic memories fade as time goes by? Here's looking anew! Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornoldi, C., Cavedon, A., De Beni, R., & Pra Baldi, A. (1988). The influence of the nature of material and of mental operations on the occurrence of the bizarreness effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, M. (1979). Les images mentales. Paris: Puf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernest, C.H. (1977). Imagery ability and cognition: A critical review. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, 181–216.Google Scholar
Ernest, C.H. (1991). Ability differences and prose learning. Intelligence, 15, 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, M.A., Campos, A., & Pérez, M.J. (1997). Mental imagery and creative thinking. Journal of Psychology, 131, 365–370.Google Scholar
Hall, J.W. (1988). On the utility of the keyword mnemonic for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 554–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J.W., Wilson, K.P., & Patterson, R.J. (1981). Mnemotechnics: Some limitations of the mnemonic keyword method for the study of foreign language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higbee, K.L. (1993). Your memory. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Howe, M.L., Courage, M.L., Vernescu, R., & Hunt, M. (2000). Distinctiveness effects in children's long-term retention. Developmental Psychology, 36, 778–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hwang, Y., Renandya, W.A., Levin, J.R., Levin, M.E., Glasman, L.D., & Carney, R.N. (1999). A pictorial mnemonic numeric system for improving students' factual memory. Journal of Mental Imagery, 23, 45–69.Google Scholar
Iaccino, J.F., Dvorak, E., & Coler, M. (1989). Effects of bizarre imagery on the long-term retention of paired associates embedded within variable contexts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 114–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, S., & Richman, C.L. (1991). Is the bizarreness effect a special case of sentence reorganization? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King-Sears, M.E., Mercer, C.D., & Sindelar, P.T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonics: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, N.E.A., Jaeger, G., & Dornfest, R. (1992). Metamemory for the bizarre. Journal of Mental Imagery, 16, 173–190.Google Scholar
Kroll, N.E.A., Schepeler, E.M., & Angin, K.T. (1986). Bizarre imagery: The misremembered mnemonic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 42–53.Google Scholar
Levin, J.R., Pressley, M., McCormick, C.B., Miller, G E., & Shriberg, L.K. (1979). Assessing the classroom potential of the keyword method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, A., & Nicolas, S. (2000). Is the picture-bizarreness effect a generation effect? Psychological Reports, 87, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, D. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, P.H., Nau, K.L., & Chandler, C.K. (1980). A functional analysis of common and bizarre visual mediators. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, M.A., DeLosh, E.L., & Merritt, P.S. (2000). Order information and retrieval distinctiveness: Recall of common versus bizarre material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1045–1056.Google ScholarPubMed
McGivern, J.E., & Levin, J.R. (1983). The keyword method and children's vocabulary learning: An interaction with vocabulary knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvie, S.J. (1995). The VVIQ as a psychometric test of individual differences in visual imagery vividness: A critical quantitative review and plea for direction. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 1–106.Google Scholar
Mercer, C. (1996). The bizarre imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, 20, 141–152.Google Scholar
O'Brien, E.J., & Wolford, C.L.R. (1982). Effect of delay in testing on retention of plausible versus bizarre mental images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 148–152.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Poon, L.W., & Walsh-Sweeney, L. (1981). Effects of bizarre and interacting imagery on learning and retrieval of the aged. Experimental Aging Research, 7, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pra Baldi, A., De Beni, R., Cornoldi, C., & Cavedon, A. (1985). Some conditions for the occurrence of the bizarreness effect in free recall. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., & Delaney, H.D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., & McDaniel, M.A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In McKeown, M.G. & Curtis, M.E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary instruction (pp. 107–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., Nakamura, G.V., Hope, D.J., Bispo, J.G., & Toye, A.R. (1980). The keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning: An investigation of its generalizability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. (1969). Mental imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. (1994). Individual differences in imaging. Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
Riefer, D.M., & LaMay, M.L. (1998). Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: A storage-retrieval analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riefer, D.M., & Rouder, J.N. (1992). A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. Memory & Cognition, 20, 601–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tess, D.E., Hutchinson, R.L., Treloar, J.H., & Jenkins, C.M. (1999). Bizarre imagery and distinctiveness: Implications for the classroom. Journal of Mental Imagery, 23, 153–170.Google Scholar
Thomas, M.H., & Wang, A.Y. (1996). Learning by the keyword mnemonic: Looking for long-term benefits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 330–342.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L.L., & Thurstone, T.G. (1962). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
[Spanish translation: Aptitudes Mentales Primarias. Madrid: TEA Ediciones (1989).]Google Scholar
Valle, F. (1998). Normas de imaginabilidad. Oviedo, Spain: University of Oviedo.Google Scholar
Wang, A.Y., Thomas, M.H., & Ouellette, J.A. (1992). Keyword mnemonic and retention of second-language vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 520–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, S.M., & Marshall, P.H. (1978). Bizarreness effects in imagery as a function of processing level and delay. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, 191–300.Google Scholar
Wollen, K.A., & Cox, S.D. (1981a). The bizarreness effect in a multitrial intentional learning task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollen, K.A., & Cox, S.D. (1981b). Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Learning, and Memory, 7, 386–392.Google Scholar