Assessing Students' Application and Transfer of a Mnemonic Strategy: The Struggle for Independence

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 1 SESS: 106 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLE NO. 0007

21, 83–93 (1996)

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT Assessing Students’ Application and Transfer of a Mnemonic Strategy: The Struggle for Independence BEVERLY J. DRETZKE University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire AND

JOEL R. LEVIN University of Wisconsin, Madison High school students participated in two experiments designed to investigate application and transfer of a mnemonic strategy. On Day 1 of Experiment 1, mnemonically instructed students outperformed nonmnemonic control students on both recall and application tests for the initial task of learning passage-embedded information about features of fictitious cities. No evidence of successful strategy transfer was obtained, however, on Day 2 passages about several U.S. presidents. In Experiment 2, mnemonically instructed students again recalled and applied more Day 1 city information than did control students. Moreover, with Day 2 transfer passages that were less complex and more similar to the Day 1 cities passages, there was qualified support for the hypothesis that mnemonic students could transfer their previously learned strategy to a set of new materials: Successful transfer was observed when the students were given an explicit hint to try to use a strategy similar to the one they had used previously (prompted transfer), but not when no such hint was provided (spontaneous transfer). © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

Learning from text often involves students both remembering explicitly stated information and applying that information in the service of other “higher-order” cognitive activities (Levin, 1986). Recent mnemonic (memory-enhancing) strategy research suggests a connection between these two text-learning outcomes. Specifically, Levin and Levin (1990) reported a series of studies in which college students were required to learn the taxonomic classifications of a series of plants. As might be expected, students who acquired the material using a provided mnemonic taxonomy were better than nonmnemonic controls at remembering the plant classifications themselves. Moreover, mnemonically instructed students were also better at rapidly retrieving information from that stored taxonomy, as

The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the teachers and students at North High School and Memorial High School in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Thanks are also due to Gene Leisz and Carol Massoth for their line drawings. Correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed to Beverly J. Dretzke, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 547024004. 83 0361-476X/96 $18.00 Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 2 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

84

DRETZKE AND LEVIN

well as evaluating and inferring novel relationships from it. Such findings are consistent with previous assertions that: (a) higher-order thinking proceeds more efficiently when the constituent to-be-applied information is readily accessed (e.g., Hayes-Roth & Walker, 1979), and (b) instructional strategies that facilitate students’ memory for separate pieces of information—and mnemonic techniques, in particular—have positive effects on the students’ subsequent integration and application of that factual information (e.g., Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, 1987). Another important educational consideration is students’ spontaneous generalizability or transfer of cognitive strategies (e.g., Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981; Levin, 1993; Phye, 1992; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Singley & Anderson, 1989). Of most direct relevance to the present study, Pressley and his colleagues (O’Sullivan & Pressley, 1984; Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980) have investigated the conditions that influence transfer of the mnemonic keyword method in associative-learning tasks. Their findings indicate that older adolescents (16 years and older) are capable of successfully transferring the keyword method spontaneously (i.e., without experimenter support or prompting), from an initial task of learning city–product pairs (e.g., Belleville–stones) to a subsequent task of learning Latin words and their English equivalents (e.g., cornix–crow). Younger adolescents (10 to 13 years), however, were able to transfer the strategy from one task to the next only when: (a) they were provided with an explicit instructional prompt to do so (Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980); or (b) they received supplementary training in the form of specific instruction in the types of tasks for which the strategy was appropriate, additional practice with strategy-appropriate tasks, or a combination of both instruction and additional practice (O’Sullivan & Pressley, 1984). One major purpose of the present study was to investigate the posited memory/ application connection in the context of students first acquiring multiple textembedded facts about cities and then engaging in an application task that required attribute-based decisions about hypothetical itineraries. A second major purpose was to assess the effects of instructional prompts on students’ subsequent strategy transfer (Pressley & Dennis-Rounds, 1980). Learning tasks were selected so as to build on previous knowledge application and transfer research using a mnemonic strategy variation that has proven effective for acquiring information about both cities (e.g., Dretzke, 1993) and presidents (e.g., Dretzke & Levin, 1990). EXPERIMENT 1 Method Participants and Design The participants were 95 seniors (47 males and 48 females) enrolled in psychology classes in a public high school located in the midwest. The age of the students ranged from 17 to 20 years (M 4 17.70, SD 4 .55). The two learning tasks were administered in the psychology classroom during

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 3 SESS: 106 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

MNEMONIC STRATEGY

85

regular class meeting times. The Day 1 cities task was administered by a university researcher and the Day 2 presidents task was administered one week later by the students’ regular psychology teacher. Students were randomly assigned to one of four Day 1/Day 2 conditions, with all four conditions represented in near-equal numbers within each class. The conditions were: control/control (n 4 24), mnemonic/control (n 4 24), and mnemonic/control plus hint (n 4 24), and mnemonic/ mnemonic (n 4 23).

Materials and Procedure Cities passages (Initial task). Six study passages and one sample passage were used for the Day 1 cities task. Each passage presented five concrete attractions of a fictitious city (e.g., flower gardens, wild west shows, ice cream). The length of the passages ranged from 97 to 102 words (M 4 99.67, SD 4 2.25). The first syllable of each city name resembled a concrete “keyword” (e.g., Hammondville 4 ham). The instruction booklets read by the mnemonic students asked them to learn the passage information by forming a mental picture of the city’s keyword referent and the city’s five features in an interactive scene. To give mnemonic students practice implementing the strategy, a sample passage, mnemonic illustration, and retrieval practice were provided. The control instructions presented the same sample passage and asked the students to practice studying by using whatever method they normally would to help them remember information of that kind. The city name was printed at the top of each page in the study booklets. For mnemonic students, the city name was followed by its keyword shown in parentheses. In both control and mnemonic conditions, the five city attractions in each passage were underlined. Each experimental passage appeared twice in the study booklets, on successive pages. The first page corresponded to a “read” phase and the second page corresponded to a “study” phase (with conditions-appropriate instructions). Factual- and inference-recall tests were administered for the cities task. The factual-recall test presented the names of the six cities, each followed by five blank lines. The students were asked to write down the five attractions that went with each city. An application (categorization) test was also developed, which required the students to recall and make inferences about the attractions mentioned in the previously studied passages. The categorization task presented three attraction categories (scenery, animals, and sports). Students were asked to write down the names of the cities that would be good to visit if they were especially interested in that attraction category, along with the attraction(s) of the city that would fit in the named category. One or more of these attraction categories appeared in at least five of the cities.1 The students also completed a scrambled word test, which served as both a short-term memory-inhibiting filler task and a covariate for the statistical analyses, reflecting students’ general verbal proficiency. This test presented 66 scrambled familiar four-letter words, with students asked to unscramble as many words as possible in the time allowed. After a short introduction, instruction and study booklets were distributed according to a predetermined random order. The experimental passages were then presented by having the students first follow along in their booklets as the experimenter read the passage aloud. They were then told to turn to the next page, where the passage appeared again, and they were given 1 min to study the information. After all six passages had been presented in this alternating read/study order, instruction and study booklets were collected. The scrambled word test was then distributed, and students were given 3 min to complete it. The factual-recall test followed next, with students given as much time

1

A second application task (paragraph writing) was also developed and administered immediately following the categorization task. It was subsequently discovered, however (based on both nonresponses and written comments in the protocols), that several students did not take that task seriously or in the spirit in which it was intended. Because of these problems—and even though it produced differential mnemonic effects of the kind anticipated (Levin, 1986)—the paragraph writing task will not be considered further.

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 4 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

86

DRETZKE AND LEVIN

as was needed. When students handed in that test, they were administered the categorization test, also for as much time as was needed. Presidents passages (transfer task). For the Day 2 task, the names of seven U.S. presidents were randomly selected from a list that excluded six likely well-known presidents. The first six presidents selected (Monroe, Arthur, Fillmore, Tyler, Eisenhower, Jefferson) appeared in the experimental passages, and the seventh (Wilson) served as a sample to illustrate assigned strategies in the instruction booklets. Five concrete pieces of information were presented about each president in passages that ranged from 110 to 116 words (M 4 113.17, SD 4 2.14). Information that was not commonly known was selected for the passages, and the target information appeared in bold capital letters. For example, in the passage for Jefferson, it was noted that: he was a SKILLED VIOLINIST; he invented a FOLDING CHAIR; he was a LANDSCAPE GARDENER; he replaced the practice of bowing to the president with the CUSTOM OF SHAKING HANDS; and that to show their fondness for him, a group of FARMERS PRESENTED HIM WITH A HUGE CHEESE. Instructions in the two Day 2 control booklets asked the students to try hard to remember the five capitalized facts about each president using whatever method they thought would work well for them. Students in the control plus hint condition were explicitly told to try to learn the presidents’ facts by using a method “similar to the one” they had used for learning information about cities the week before when the university researcher was there. The instructions read by mnemonic students told them to form a mental image of each president’s keyword and associated five facts in an interactive scene. They were then instructed to practice doing this using the sample passage and provided interactive illustration. The study booklets for the presidents passages were made to appear in a different form from those that were used in the city-learning task. In addition to being full-page (21.6 × 27.9 cm) rather than half-page, each passage was presented once on a single page. Each passage was headed by the president’s name and, in the mnemonic condition, the name was also followed by a keyword in parentheses (e.g., chef for Jefferson). The dependent measures for the presidents task were a factual-recall test and a factual-recognition (matching) test. The factual-recall test presented the names of the six presidents followed by five blank lines. Instructions stated that students were to write down as much of the capitalized information as they could remember. The six presidents’ names appeared at the top of the factualrecognition test, each next to a letter of the alphabet, A–F. The names were followed by 30 short questions (e.g., Which president introduced the custom of shaking hands at the White House?), and students were told to write the letters corresponding to the correct presidents on the blank lines provided. Between study and testing, students were asked to write down as many words as they could think of (other than proper nouns) that began with the letter e, which again served as a short-termmemory-inhibiting filler task.

Results and Discussion Scoring On the recall tests, criteria for awarding either full or partial credit for each response were agreed upon by two judges who were “blind” with respect to the students’ conditions. One point was given to verbatim responses and paraphrase responses that included all essential elements. Half-point credit was given for incomplete verbatim and paraphrase responses that omitted essential information. On the Day 1 categorization application task, students received one point for each correct city name–attraction pair that fit under the three categories of scenery, animals, and sports. The two judges determined that a maximum of 32 points was possible across the three categories. Scoring of the Day 2 recognition test

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 5 SESS: 106 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

MNEMONIC STRATEGY

87

was straightforward; each correctly matched attraction was awarded one point. In all analyses conducted, students’ scrambled word test performance served as a covariate, following initial determination that that measure did not interact with instructional conditions and that it was statistically related to each of the outcome measures. In all cases, analysis-of-covariance Fs based on one numerator degree of freedom were converted to ts (by taking the square root). Initial Task Memory On the Day 1 factual-recall task, mnemonically instructed subjects substantially outperformed controls [adjusted means of 45.3 and 26.0% correct, t(92) 4 3.29, p < .001]. The same was true for recall clustering, defined as the proportion of city attractions correctly paired with one another (out of 60 possible), divided by the proportion of city attractions recalled regardless of the specific city names with which those attractions were associated (out of 30 possible), and converted to a conditional percentage. This is a measure of attribute organization that is conceptually independent of total recall (see Levin, Shriberg, & Berry, 1983). The recall clustering adjusted means for mnemonic and control students were 53.0 and 35.3%, respectively, t(92) 4 3.04, p < .005. Initial Task Application More interestingly for present purposes, however, mnemonic students were also superior to controls on the inference-demanding categorization task, for each category (scenery, animals, sports) as well as across categories [latter respective adjusted means of 18.5 and 9.0%, t(92) 4 3.57, p < .001]. Although neither group’s performance is high in absolute terms—reflecting, to some extent, the difficulty of the task—the mnemonic students’ mean nonetheless represents better than an 8/10 of a within-group standard deviation advantage over that of control students. Transfer Task Memory Adjusted means for the Day 2 dependent measures are displayed, for each of the four treatment conditions, in the top portion of Table 1. No statistical differences among conditions were found on any of the president-learning measures (factual recall and clustering recall, as well as factual recognition and clustering recognition2), all Fs(3,86) < 1. Discussion The findings of Experiment 1 lend support to the claim that mnemonic strategies are capable of elevating students’ performance on more than simple mea2 Unlike clustering recall, the clustering recognition measure was not conditionalized on the number of items correctly recognized because all city attractions were accessible during the recognition test (i.e., they were listed on the test booklet).

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 6 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

88

DRETZKE AND LEVIN

sures of rote memory (Levin & Levin, 1990); specifically, they can improve students’ organization (clustering) of and higher-order thinking (knowledge application involving inference making) with that information as well. At the same time, mnemonic-strategy transfer (whether spontaneous or in the company of instructional prompting) was not promoted in this experiment. The finding that explicit mnemonic instructions facilitated students’ memory on the cities task but not on the presidents task must be taken into account, however, when interpreting the lack-of-transfer results observed here. Specifically, the latter task proved to be considerably more difficult and complex than the former, likely as a result of the less concrete, unfamiliar, and more extensive information to be associated with each president. In contrast to the previous Dretzke and Levin (1990) study in which mnemonic benefits were found for the presidents passages when only one fact was associated with each president (single-attribute passages), no similar benefits materialized for the five-fact-per-president passages (multiple-attribute passages). Consequently, in Experiment 2, a multiple-attribute Day 2 transfer task was developed that was less complex and more parallel in content and structure to the Day 1 cities task. EXPERIMENT 2 A major purpose of Experiment 2 was to investigate mnemonic strategy transfer using a “nearer” transfer task—one that was similar to the Day 1 cities task and that should, therefore, be regarded more as a strategy maintenance task than was true for the “farther” transfer presidents materials used in Experiment 1. The selected task was that of learning concrete information about the Canadian provinces, adapted from one developed by Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980). Because Day 1 materials and procedures were identical for the two experiments, a second major purpose was to test the replicability of our “application” findings using the same city-inference task that was developed for Experiment 1. Method Participants and Design The participants were 138 seniors enrolled in psychology classes in a different public high school located in the same city as in Experiment 1. The age of the 63 males and 71 females ranged from 17 to 19 years (M 4 17.60, SD 4 .52). The two learning tasks were administered during regular class meeting times. The cities task was administered by a university researcher and the provinces task was administered nine days later by the student teacher assigned to the psychology classes. Students were randomly assigned to the same Day 1/Day 2 conditions as in Experiment 1, with all four conditions represented in near-equal numbers within each class.

Materials and Procedure Cities task (day 1). With the exception of the problematic paragraph writing task (which was excluded), the Day 1 materials and procedures were identical to those of Experiment 1. Provinces task (day 2). For the Day 2 task, three concrete pieces of information were presented about each of the 10 Canadian provinces in short passages that ranged from 56 to 63 words (M 4

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 7 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

MNEMONIC STRATEGY

89

59.50, SD 4 2.71)—see Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980) for the passages from which these were adapted. The target information appeared in bold capital letters. For example, students learned that New Brunswick has “a huge LOBSTER HOLDING TANK” and that Saskatchewan has “several excellent CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING locations.” In the mnemonic/mnemonic condition, a picturable keyword was provided for each province’s name (e.g., new brush for New Brunswick). A sample passage about the Yukon territory was used to illustrate the instructions for each condition. In the two Day 2 control conditions (control/control and mnemonic/control), the same instructions and procedures were used, paralleling those of Experiment 1. Students in the mnemonic/control + hint condition were additionally told to try to learn the provinces’ features by using a method “similar to the one” they had used for the cities task the week before when the university researcher was there. The tests administered on Day 2 included the same filler e test that was used in Experiment 1, as well as factual-recall and factual-recognition tests that paralleled those of Experiment 1.

Results and Discussion Initial Task Memory and Application The data from a foreign-exchange student and three learning-disabled students were not included in the analyses. The Day 1 control and mnemonic sample sizes were thereby reduced to 33 and 101, respectively. As in Experiment 1, students’ scores on the Day 1 scrambled word test comprised a covariate in all analyses. Consistent with the findings of Experiment 1, mnemonically instructed students: (1) correctly remembered many more city-attraction pairings than did controls on the factual-recall task [respective adjusted means of 58.5 and 27.6%), t(131) 4 6.22, p < .001]; (2) outperformed controls with respect to recall clustering [adjusted means of 66.6 and 31.9%), t(131) 4 7.00, p < .001]; and (3) were much more adept than controls on the categorization application task [adjusted means of 26.8 and 12.3%, t(131) 4 5.62, p < .001, and representing more than a 1 within-group standard deviation advantage for mnemonic students]. Transfer Task Memory As in Experiment 1, absences on Day 2 reduced the number of students in each condition. In addition, the student teacher waited about 15 min in the first period class before beginning the experiment so that any late comers could be included. Unfortunately, this resulted in several first-period students not being able to complete the recognition test. Therefore, the recognition tests from this class were not included in the analyses. Mean performance on the Day 2 dependent measures is displayed in the bottom portion of Table 1. In striking contrast to the results of Experiment 1, there were statistical differences among conditions on the provinces task. This was true for each of the four measures reported in Table 1: correct recall, F(3,116) 4 3.93, p 4 .01; recall clustering, F(3,116) 4 5.00, p < .005; correct recognition, F(3,94) 4 3.56, p < .025; and recognition clustering, F(3,94) 4 3.75, p < .025. Application of Shaffer’s (1986) post-omnibus sequential multiple-comparison procedure (Seaman, Levin, & Serlin, 1991) to assess pairwise differences among the four conditions’ covariate-adjusted means (based on a familywise a of .05 for each

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 8 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

90

DRETZKE AND LEVIN

ADJUSTED MEAN PERCENTAGES

FOR

TABLE 1 DAY 2 DEPENDENT MEASURES, Recall a

Day 1/Day 2 Condition

Correct

Mnemonic/mnemonic (n 4 23) Mnemonic/control + Hint (n 4 24) Mnemonic/control (n 4 21) Control/control (n 4 23)

BY

CONDITION Recognition

Clustering

b

Correctc

Experiment 1 47.36 51.31 47.95 62.42 48.86 55.41 46.23 53.12

36.32 38.00 38.04 37.16 Recall e

Day 1/Day 2 Condition

Correct

Mnemonic/mnemonic (n 4 29/24) Mnemonic/control + Hint (n 4 35/28) Mnemonic/control (n 4 30/23) Control/control (n 4 27/24)

61.01 61.40 45.32 40.50

Clusteringd 42.78 52.93 48.90 47.63

Recognition

Clustering

f

Correctg

Experiment 2 81.32 76.94 76.36 72.57 60.46 56.76 57.63 53.31

Clusteringh 80.18 70.61 52.83 55.01

Note. In Expt. 1, four of the original 95 students were absent on Day 2. In Expt. 2, condition sample sizes in parentheses refer to the number of students present for the Day 2 recall/recognition tasks (see text). a MSe 4 502.53. b MSe 4 659.60. c MSe 4 577.44. d MSe 4 558.33. e MSe 4 869.52. f MSe 4 789.67. g MSe 4 915.03. h MSe 4 1069.66.

measure) revealed that on the recall test, students in the mnemonic/mnemonic and mnemonic/control plus hint conditions each remembered more facts than did students in the control/control condition. For recall clustering, the just-described pattern again emerged, along with a statistical difference between mnemonic/ mnemonic and mnemonic/control students. On the recognition task, mnemonic/ mnemonic students both remembered and clustered statistically more facts than did control/control students. Mnemonic/mnemonic students also clustered more than did mnemonic/control students. The recognition task differences favoring mnemonic/control plus hint over control/control and mnemonic/control students were not statistically significant. GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of both experiments once again clearly demonstrate that mnemonic strategy use can produce benefits for more than simple rote memory performance (Levin & Levin, 1990). On the initial task of learning concrete text-embedded

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 9 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

MNEMONIC STRATEGY

91

information about cities, mnemonically instructed students outperformed control students not just with respect to the amount and organization of their immediate recall, but also on a task that required students to apply the just-learned information. Specifically, mnemonically instructed students exhibited enhanced performance on an application task that required them to make inferences about the attractions that were associated with the cities (viz., where it “would be good to visit if you were especially interested in . . . [scenery, animals, or sports]”). Consequently, it appears that mnemonically encoded factual information can be selectively, flexibly, and effectively summoned up for deployment in the service of novel application tasks. The results regarding strategy transfer are less straightforward and more disconcerting. There was no evidence of successful spontaneous or explicitly prompted transfer in Experiment 1. Examination of the Experiment 1 transfer task indicated that its level of difficulty and its low similarity with the initial task may have affected the students’ ability to accomplish strategy transfer successfully. Provision of a relatively less difficult, more similar (maintenance-like) transfer task in Experiment 2, however, resulted in successful transfer only when students were provided with an explicit transfer prompt. The students who received mnemonic instruction for the initial task, but who did not receive an explicit prompt in their transfer task instructions, appeared not to recognize the similarity of the two tasks and task-appropriate strategies. On one level, our Experiment 2 finding of limited transfer effects (i.e., only when an explicit prompt was provided) is consistent with the previous conclusions of Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980). In the latter study, however, it was the comparatively younger students (fifth and sixth graders) who required an explicit prompt to exhibit strategy transfer, whereas the older students (11th and 12th graders) transferred the strategy—at least to some extent—without any prompting at all. In contrast, there was no sign of spontaneous transfer among the 12th graders in the present Experiment 2. One possible explanation is that the present materials, multiple-attribute passages, were more resource-demanding than was the simple list of paired items used by Pressley and Dennis-Rounds and, therefore, the present students were less able to recognize the strategy correspondence of the two tasks. Our preferred explanation, however, focuses on obvious differences between the two studies in the operational characteristics of the second (transfer) task. In the Pressley and Dennis-Rounds (1980) study, the transfer task was administered during the same experimental session in which the initial task was administered, and by the same experimenter. Thus, it is likely that the proximal testing conditions and similar formats served, to some extent, to augment the perceived similarities of the two tasks. In contrast, in both experiments of the present study, the transfer task was administered about a week later by the students’ regular teachers (rather than by the researchers who had administered the initial task). In addition, the materials for the initial and transfer tasks were designed to be quite different in physical appearance. The extent to which

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 10 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

92

DRETZKE AND LEVIN

such differences in perceived similarity contributed to the “developmental lag” in spontaneous transfer here, relative to what was reported by Pressley and DennisRounds (1980), can be determined only on the basis of follow-up parametric investigations. Another important issue that needs to be addressed concerns “near” versus “far” transfer. Although these terms are commonly used in educational research, very few theorists (e.g., Singley & Anderson, 1989) have provided us with guidance for predicting successful transfer. It is far from obvious whether task and procedure characteristics are more important than student characteristics, or whether it is the interaction of these factors that will best predict spontaneous strategy transfer. What is clear from the present study—and supportive of Levin’s (1993) recent discussion of major disappointments and challenges for mnemonic-strategy investigators—is that more research needs to be conducted to unravel the complexities of spontaneous strategy transfer. More broadly, and just as our third president discovered in the course of human events, we are also beginning to realize that the struggle to achieve true “independence” in both the cognitivestrategy and problem-solving domains presents researchers with a very real conceptual challenge (see, for example, Needham & Begg, 1991; Phye, 1992; and Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Important factors appear to be the relative difficulty of the transfer task, its similarity to the initial task, and instructional variations that engage those relevant cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes that are critical for students’ successful between-task transfer (e.g., O’Sullivan & Pressley, 1984; Zimmerman, 1994). In short, spontaneous transfer “miracles” in the absence of firmly established self-regulating and motivational supporting structures are not, as a general rule, to be expected in the mnemonic-strategy domain, as well as in others. REFERENCES BROWN, A. L., CAMPIONE, J. C., & DAY, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21. DRETZKE, B. J. (1993). Effects of pictorial mnemonic strategy usage on prose recall of young, middle-aged, and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 19, 489–503. DRETZKE, B. J., & LEVIN, J. R. (1990). Building factual knowledge about the U.S. presidents via pictorial mnemonic strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 153–169. HAYES-ROTH, B., & WALKER, C. (1979). Configural effects in human memory: The superiority of memory over external information sources as a basis for inference verification. Cognitive Science, 3, 119–140. LEVIN, J. R. (1986). Four cognitive principles of learning-strategy instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–17. LEVIN, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom learning: A 20-year report card. Elementary School Journal, 94, 235–244. LEVIN, J. R., SHRIBERG, L. K., & BERRY, J. K. (1983). A concrete strategy for remembering abstract prose. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 277–290. LEVIN, M. E., & LEVIN, J. R. (1990). Scientific mnemonomies: Methods for maximizing more than memory. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 277–290.

JOBNAME: Vol 21#1 PAGE: 11 SESS: 105 OUTPUT: Sat Apr 27 16:53:05 1996 /xypage/worksmart/tsp000/66511f/1

MNEMONIC STRATEGY

93

NEEDHAM, D. R., & BEGG, I. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory & Cognition, 19, 543–557. O’SULLIVAN, J. T., & PRESSLEY, M. (1984). Completeness of instruction and strategy transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 275–288. PHYE, G. D. (1992). Strategic transfer: A tool for academic problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 393–421. PRESSLEY, M., BORKOWSKI, J. G., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1987). Good strategy users coordinate metacognition, strategy use and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. PRESSLEY, M., & DENNIS-ROUNDS, J. (1980). Transfer of a mnemonic keyword strategy at two age levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 575–582. PRESSLEY, M., LEVIN, J. R., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. SALOMON, G., & PERKINS, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142. SEAMAN, M. A., LEVIN, J. R., & SERLIN, R. C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practicable procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 577–586. SHAFFER, J. P. (1986). Modified sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 826–831. SINGLEY, M. K., & ANDERSON, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skills. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. ZIMMERMAN, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.