Full text

Page 1 of 9

AUTHOR: Enrique Avila; Mark Sadoski TITLE: Exploring New Applications of the Keyword Method to Acquire English Vocabulary
SOURCE: Language Learning v46 p379-95 S '96
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

AUTHOR ABSTRACT
Previous research on L2 vocabulary learned by the keyword method has primarily involved the use of English
keywords to learn the vocabulary of other languages. Our study used Spanish keywords to acquire English
vocabulary. Sixty-three fifth-grade limited English proficiency students learned the definitions of 10 English words
either by the keyword method or by control instructions emphasizing direct translation and memory. We
administered cued-recall and sentence-completion tasks either immediately or after a I-week delay in a between-
subjects experimental design. Results showed that the keyword method produced superior recall and
comprehension both immediately and after 1 week. Results further demonstrated that the keyword method is
readily adaptable to actual ESL classrooms.
???iLkhemastery of vocabulary is an essential component of second language (L2) acquisition. Vocabulary is
also of prime concern in L2 settings because it plays a dominant role in classroom success (Krashen & Terrell,
1983). However, "whether, and how best, to teach vocabulary has long been a topic of controversy" (Levin, Levin,
Glasman, & Nordwall, 1992, p. 156).
???Z$wenty years ago, Atkinson (1975) developed a mnemonic technique based on imagery--the keyword
method--for learning foreign language (FL) vocabulary. The strategy involves two stages. First, the FL word is
associated with a familiar concrete word (the keyword) based on acoustic similarities. The next stage is the
production of an imaginal link between the target word and the keyword. For instance, a student could learn the
translation of the Spanish word carta, meaning (postal) letter, using the English word cart as the keyword and
generating a visual image of a giant postal letter inside a shopping cart. Recalling the image reminds the learner

of the word carta as well as the meaning, postal letter.

???Wnemonic devices such as the keyword method have been used for many centuries (Thompson, 1987).
Today, the keyword method is one of the most extensively researched mnemonic strategies. It has proven
effective in improving both immediate and delayed recall of L2/FL vocabulary (e.g., Atkinson & Raugh, 1975;
McDaniel, Pressley, & Dunay, 1987; Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, 1987).
Nonetheless, Thompson argued that not enough is known about "the optimal conditions for their use in L2
learning.... However, what is known so far seems to generally support the notion that mnemonics, particularly the
imagery keyword technique, enable learners to memorize vocabulary more effectively" (p. 48).
???zeveral researchers have advanced theoretical rationales for the use of the keyword method. Taking a dual-
coding theory perspective (Paivio, 1971/1979, 1986), Paivio and Desrochers (1979) argued that in the case of the
keyword method mental imagery provides a meaningful link between each mnemonic pegword and recall. Levin
(1989) argued that the keyword method is mnemonic-based in that it relies on the recoding, relating, and
retrieving principles of effective associative mnemonic devices. Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, and Michener
(1982) and Pressley et al. (1987) claimed that the keyword method provides linkages from the vocabulary word to
a meaningful definition and therefore produces enhanced associative recall of definitions. That is, when cued with

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/resuIts/resuIts_single_fulltext.jhtmI?_O ... 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 2 of 9

the vocabulary words, the learner has a direct mnemonic route, via the keyword interaction, to the appropriate
meanings. Similarly, Cohen (1987) claimed that mnemonic aids are most beneficial in successfully guiding
students to remember L2 vocabulary. Cohen maintained that one of the best ways of improving performance in
learning new words is by using mnemonic links.
???$!mpirical research has produced findings about the effectiveness of the keyword method for different age
groups and for immediate versus delayed recall. Pressley (1977) and Pressley and Levin (1978) adapted
Atkinson's (1975) keyword method to determine whether children could benefit from the strategy. Their results
were consistent with Atkinson's conclusion about the effectiveness of the keyword method for vocabulary
learning. However, they found that, for young children (ages 6-8) to derive maximum benefit from the keyword
method, it was necessary to provide them with actual line drawings during the imagery link stage. Pressley,
Samuel, Hershey, Bishop, and Dickinson (1981) obtained similar results with 3- to 5-year-old children. Similarly,
Levin et al. (1984) suggested that young children seem to have difficulties generating interactive images for
themselves. These findings are consistent with Rohwer's (1973) developmental elaboration theory, which states
that with increasing age, children can better apply imagery-based elaboration strategies. Younger children may
need pictures for maximum effect.
???Ektherexperimental results suggested that even 1l-year-olds are capable of using the keyword method
(Merry, 1980). These findings indicated that the keyword method improved both the immediate and delayed recall
of 1l-year-old students' learning of French vocabulary.
???gowever, other studies have found effects of the keyword method only for immediate recall. In a recent study,
Wang, Thomas, and Ouelette (1992) compared the retention rates of college students for L2 vocabulary words
that were learned using either the keyword method or rote learning. They conducted four experiments in which
the retention interval (immediate vs. delayed) was treated as a between-subjects factor. Use of the keyword
method substantially increased learning speed and immediate recall of French nouns and their English
equivalents, as compared to rote learning. However, their findings indicated that long-term forgetting was greater
for learners using the keyword method than for learners engaged in rote rehearsal.
???Skwostudies by Wang and Thomas (1992), using between-subjects designs, compared the effects of the
keyword method and rote learning on the long-term recall of English translations of Chinese ideographs. The
researchers claimed that the results obtained in both studies replicated earlier research demonstrating the
effectiveness of the keyword method for immediate recall. However, in no instance did they find that the use of
the keyword method conferred any advantage for delayed recall.
???Skheabove findings suggest that the use of the keyword method in various forms facilitates the immediate
recall of vocabulary from a number of languages. That is, students receiving instructions in the keyword method
typically recall substantially more definitions soon after learning, compared to students assigned to use other
strategies or left to their own devices. Results for delayed recall are mixed. The findings further suggest that
younger children can benefit most from the keyword method when pictures are provided for them. However, our
review of literature revealed no published investigations of schoolchildren using keywords from other languages to
acquire English vocabulary. (But see Brown & Perry, 1991, where the keyword method was used with Arabic
keywords for learning English vocabulary with Arabic college students.) We therefore explored the use of a
modified version of the keyword method with schoolchildren: using Spanish keywords to acquire English
vocabulary. This approach offered the advantage of using keywords that were already established in L1 rather
than using keywords from L2 that may have been less familiar (Cummins, 1981).
????% addition, we addressed certain other issues related to the practical use of the keyword method. One issue
was whether this method could be effectively applied in actual classroom contexts (cf. Brown & Perry, 1991). As
Levin (1985) pointed out, the terms group administration and classroom implementation are not synonymous. He
suggested more evaluation of the keyword method in actual classroom settings beyond the laboratory. The

ht t p ://v nweb .hww iIso nweb .co m/ hww/res u Its/ resu Its-s i ng le-f u IItex t .j ht mI?-D. .. 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 3 of 9

present study took place in actual fifth-grade classrooms using certified bilingual teachers.
???%nother issue concerns retention interval. There is much evidence that the keyword method produces
benefits in immediate recall, as measured by definition recall (Levin, 1989).Theoretically, imagery-based
techniques such as the keyword method reduce forgetting over time as well (Paivio, 1971/1979, 1986).The long-
term benefits of the keyword method have been demonstrated empirically with children (Levin et al., 1984;
McDaniel et al., 1987;Merry, 1980).However, Wang and Thomas (1992) claimed that measures of long-term
retention may have been confounded in earlier studies by repeated measures testing (e.g., Groninger, 1971;Ott,
Buttler, Blake, & Ball, 1973;Pressley & Levin, 1985;Rosenheck, Levin, & Levin, 1989).Wang and Thomas
suggested that a between-subjects design would be desirable to avoid the confound established by testing the
same people repeatedly. The present study investigated both immediate and delayed retention intervals, using a
between-subjects design.
???$$nother issue is the common criticism of the keyword method, refuted by its advocates (e.g., Pressley et al.,

1987;Pressley, Levin, & Miller, 1981),that recall of vocabulary definitions is enhanced at the expense of
comprehension and usage (e.g., Higbee, 1978;Nagy & Herman, 1987).The present study investigated

comprehension and usage as well as recall of definitions.

???$lpecifically, this study addressed the following research questions:
????. To what extent does the use of the keyword method, Spanish version, by limited English proficiency (LEP)
Hispanic fifth-graders improve their recall of new English vocabulary either immediately or after a delayed
retention interval of one week?

????. Are LEP Hispanic fifth-graders who use the keyword method to learn vocabulary definitions able to
appropriately complete sentences using target vocabulary items, either immediately or after a delayed retention

interval of one week?

METHOD PARTICIPANTS
? & h ? e ! initial pool of participants were 93 low-achieving, disadvantaged, fifth-grade LEP Hispanic students from
an urban school district in Texas. Prior to the study, the students scored at or below the 23rd percentile on the
Science Research Associates Survey of Basic Skills and scored at or below the 5th instructional level, out of 8,on

f
the Idea Proficiency Test, a state-approved oral language proficiency test in English. Although the majority o
students (82) were of Mexican descent, there were also 1 1 students who came from other Latin American
countries, including Colombia (I), E l Salvador (4), Guatemala (l), Honduras (2), and Nicaragua (3). The mean
age of the group was 11.2(SD=.97). We included only students who were present for all instructional sessions
and testing sessions in the final sample. The final sample size was 63.
MATERIALS
???Efe used 13 English words as the to-be-learned vocabulary items. Three of them served as practice items.
The remaining experimental words consisted of 8 low-frequency words, as measured by Paivio, Yuille, and
norms, and 2 obscure words, as defined in McDaniel and Pressley (1984).In an informal
Madigan's (1968) survey, a group of experienced ESL teachers judged that the English words were words that would be unknown
to LEP fifth-graders, although the Spanish equivalents would be well known.
???Be constructed four booklets, one practice booklet and one study booklet, for each learning condition. The
practice booklet for the keyword method condition was three pages long and provided interactive pictures of the 3
Spanish keywords and the Spanish equivalents of the English words. The pictures were created by the
researchers and drawn by an artist. The English word, the Spanish keyword, and the Spanish meaning of the

htt p ://vn w e b .hw w iIs0 nw eb .co m/ hww/r es u Its/re s uIt s-s ing Ie-f u II text .j ht mI?-D.. . 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 4 of 9

English word were printed at the bottom of each page below the picture. The practice booklet for the control
condition provided only the English words and their Spanish counterparts in the center of each page. An example

of a word as presented to the experimental group appears in Figure 1; an example of the same word as

presented to the control group in Figure 2.

TEST INSTRUMENTS
???Be devised a cued recall test and a sentence completion test. The cued recall test required students to write
the Spanish equivalents in a blank after each of the 10 English words. We provided no Spanish words. The
sentence completion test required them to fill in a blank in each of 10 sentences by choosing the word that best fit
the context. The sentences were in English and devised so that each word would fit only one context correctly.
We provided the English vocabulary words in a list on the same page as the sentences. For example, one
sentence read, "She likes cooking chili using the old iron-." the sentences.
PROCEDURES
???%ight certified bilingual/ESL teachers and their bilingual aides gave instruction. The use of Spanish was
encouraged throughout the duration of the study, following Cummins' (1981) suggestion that students who learn
academic concepts and literacy skills in their L1 can more readily transfer those skills to an L2 because their
knowledge is grounded in the language they comprehend.
???@e randomly assigned the students to eight classes in near-equal numbers. The mean number of students
per class was 11.6. We randomly assigned classes to either the keyword method condition or the control
condition, and randomly assigned teachers to classes.
???Be gave the teachers and their aides two training sessions, based on procedures in Pressley and Levin
(1978) and Kasper (1993). In the first teacher training session, we explained the logic of the keyword method. We
gave them instruction and practice in the component steps of the keyword method, and asked them to bring any
questions to the second session.
? ? ? ? & ! n the second session, we discussed the questions and reactions of the teachers and their aides. We
provided additional practice in the use of the keyword method. Then we assigned teachers to experimental or
control conditions and warned them against disclosing any kind of information that could contaminate the study.
We especially warned control group teachers to avoid any mention of the keyword method or similar strategy. We
provided a printed set of procedures for using the keyword method to the teachers in the experimental group. We
assigned a set of procedures using only translation to the teachers in the control group.
???& the first day of the experiment, the teachers gave the students practice on the 3 practice items. In the
experimental group, the teachers explained the logic of the keyword method. They provided interactive pictures
for the practice items and emphasized the importance of remembering the interactive pictures. Teachers
presented control group students the material as follows: "The English word [English word] means [Spanish
definition]". The teachers then asked the control group students to try their best to remember the words.
???& the second day of the experiment, the teachers presented students in both groups with the 10
experimental words. As they presented each item, the instructors followed the respective procedure from the
practice session.
???@n the third day of the experiment, both groups reviewed the 10 words with the teacher, briefly repeating the
procedures of the second session. Then 15 minutes were allotted for studying the words independently. Following
the study interval, the teachers gave the students in the "immediate" condition the cued recall test for the Spanish
equivalents of the English words. They advised the students to use their previously instructed strategies. These
students then had their cued recall tests collected and received the sentence completion test. For the groups in
The correct word, skillet, was available in a list after

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/resuIts/resuIts_single_fuIItext.jhtmI?_D ... 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 5 of 9

the "delayed" condition, the instructors gave both tests exactly one week later in the same manner.
???E!!fter the experiment, we informally interviewed a group of 16 students who had the best performance. This
group included four students from each experimental condition (keyword immediate and delayed; control
immediate and delayed). We asked the students to share the vocabulary learning strategies employed during the
study as well as their reactions to the method they used. The interview lasted approximately 10 minutes per
group; it was conducted in Spanish.
RESULTS
???Be performed separate 2? [(learning condition: keyword or control) ?(retention interval: immediate or
delayed)] analyses of variance for the cued recall data and the sentence completion data. Because of unequal
cell sizes, we employed the general linear model (GLM) procedure (Hatch & Lazarton, 1991).
CUED RECALL
???5keans and standard deviations for the cued recall test appear in Table 1. The GLM analysis revealed a
significant main effect for learning condition, F(1, 59)=19.94, p<.OOOI. Students using the keyword method
outperformed students in the control condition. The GLM analysis revealed a significant main effect for retention
interval, F(1, 59)=30.49, p<.OOOl. Immediate recall was greater than delayed recall. The interaction was not
significant.
???Be computed effect sizes for the differences in cued recall between the keyword and control groups for both
the immediate and delayed retention intervals. The effect size for immediate recall was 5 9 standard deviation
units and the effect size for delayed recall was 2.27 standard deviation units. These effect sizes are, respectively,
moderate and very large (Cohen, 1988).
SENTENCE COMPLETION
???qkeans and standard deviations for the sentence completion test are in Table 2. The GLM analysis revealed a
significant main effect for learning condition, F(1, 59)=14.09, p<.0004. Students using the keyword method
outperformed students in the control condition. The GLM analysis revealed a significant main effect for retention
interval, F(1, 59)=29.31, p<.OOOl. Immediate performance was better than delayed performance. The interaction
was not significant.
? ? ? g e computed effect sizes for the differences in sentence completion performance between the keyword and
control groups for both the immediate and delayed retention intervals. The effect size for immediate sentence
completion was .84 standard deviation units and the effect size for delayed recall was .75 standard deviation
units. These effect sizes are, respectively, large and moderate (Cohen, 1988).

INFORMAL INTERVl EWS

???Efe asked the students to share the strategies they used and their reaction to them. Students in the control
groups reported using a rote repetition strategy most often. That is, they repeated the English target item and its
Spanish counterpart over and over. However, nearly every student in a control condition reported using more than
one strategy. Of these other strategies, they most frequently reported noticing that a target item and its
counterpart began with the same letter. For example, the target item, skillet, and a Spanish equivalent, sarten,
begin with the same letter. They also frequently mentioned looking words up in a dictionary for a complete
definition. The control group reported few other strategies as frequently. No student in a control condition reported
using the keyword method or any similar strategy.
???& the other hand, virtually all the keyword method students reported having used the strategy assigned to
them. They reported both being successful at executing the keyword method to learn the new English vocabulary

htt p ://v nw e b .hww iIso nw e b .co m/ hww /r es uIts/re s uIts-s ing le-f u IItex t .j ht mI?-D.. . 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 6 of 9

and finding it enjoyable. Representative comments were: "The method helped me, and I learned new words" and

"I liked it a lot, it was fun." Some of these students mentioned that the keyword method helped them maintain a
high level of interest in the hard task of learning new vocabulary. Most of them had something positive to say about the method.

DISCUSSION ???grevious research on immediate and long-term retention of vocabulary learned by the keyword method has
primarily involved the use of English keywords to learn the vocabulary of languages other than English. Our study
was designed to assess the utility of the keyword method using Spanish keywords to acquire English vocabulary
by at-risk Hispanic fifth graders.
???Efe addressed two major questions in the study. First, to what extent did the use of the keyword method,
Spanish version, by limited English proficiency (LEP) Hispanic fifth-graders improve their recall of new English
vocabulary either immediately or after one week? Results regarding cued recall support those of previous studies
in which the keyword method improved students' memory for definitions. Students using the keyword method
were able to recall approximately 25% more definitions immediately, and nearly three times as many definitions
after one week. Thus, they retained the English vocabulary definitions quite well over time. That this occurred in a
between-subjects design counters Wang and Thomas' (1992) contention that the advantage of the keyword
method for long-term retention found in previous studies may have been due to the use of repeated measures
testing. However, Wang and Thomas used different participants (college students) and control condition
instructions (rote rehearsal) than we did.
???Zkhesecond research question asked whether LEP Hispanic fifth-graders who used the keyword method to
learn vocabulary definitions were able to appropriately complete sentences using target vocabulary items, either
immediately or after one week. The results showed that keyword students were superior to control students for
sentence completion, both immediately and after one week. In fact, performance on the immediate sentence
completion test was even higher than on the immediate cued recall test. These findings counter the argument that
the superiority of the keyword method is obtained at the expense of the performance in comprehension and
usage (e.g., Higbee, 1978; Nagy & Herman, 1987).
???Ekur study also demonstrated that using the keyword method is practical in public school classroom contexts.
The students in these classes were LEP fifth-graders in need of strategies for English vocabulary acquisition.
They were successfully taught the keyword method by classroom teachers who had undergone two brief teacher
training sessions in the technique. Interviews with students suggested that they found the technique not only
effective but enjoyable. Therefore, the classroom application of the keyword method to ESL at-risk middle-grade
students is supported. However, researchers need more classroom assessments of the keyword method before
making any permanent conclusions.
???Zkhisstudy supports theories that include the use of imagery elaboration strategies in learning verbal material
(e.g., Paivio, 1971/1979, 1986; Rohwer, 1973; Sadoski & Paivio, 1994; Sadoski, Paivio, & Goetz, 1991). The use
of imagery was superior to interverbal translation between languages and rote repetition strategies for learning
vocabulary items. An interesting direction for further research would be to determine if LEP fifth-grade students
could generate their own mental images for use with the keyword method or whether they require pictures, as
appears to be the case with younger children. Another useful extension of this research would be to test the
English version of the keyword method against the Spanish version.
???ginally, we should mention some limitations. The words we selected for this study were concrete nouns that
could be represented by pictures. Presumably, learners would require other methods to learn more abstract
words. Also, our participants learned only one definition of each word, whereas many words have several.
Besides, many English nouns are very similar to their Spanish counterparts, making the keyword strategy or other

htt p ://vn w e b .hww iIso nw e b .co m/ hww/ res u Its/ res u Its-s ing le-f u IIt ex t .j ht mI?-D ... 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 7 of 9

strategies potentially less necessary or effective. However, for many words in English and in other languages,
keyword learning may be an effective technique.
???P?ddedmaterial
???$?nriqueAvila Universidad de 10s Andes, Venezuela
???qark Sadoski Texas A&M University
???$?nriqueAvila, Department of Modern Languages.
???P$orrespondenceconcerning this article should be addressed to Mark Sadoski, Department of Educational
Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4232. Internet:
msadoski@tamu.edu
???&kevisedversion accepted 18 October 1995
???gkable 1 Cued Recall Performance
Learning Condition Keyword Control SD n M SD

Retent ion Interval Im m e d i at e De I ayed

8.56 6.50

1.82 3.03

18 12

6.78 2.33

3.04 1.84

18 15

???Fkote. Maximum Score=lO.

???Z!able 2 Sentence Completion Performance
Learning Condition Con t r o I Keyword SD n M SD

Retent ion Interval Im m e d i ate De I ayed

9.22 5.75

1.31 2.49

18 12

6.72 3.60

2.97 2.87

18 15

???Fkote. Maximum Score=lO.

???Yigure 1. Example of a word as presented to the experimental (keyword method) group.
???Yigure 2. Example of a word as presented to the control group.

REFERENCES ???8tkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821-828.
???Zitkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword to the acquisition of
Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 104, 126-133.
???Pl!rown, T. S., & Perry, F. L., Jr. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-670.
???$lohen, A. D. (1987). Studying learner strategies: How we get the information. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 31-40). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
???Piohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
???Piummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for
language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los
Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
???%roninger, L. D. (1971). Mnemonic imagery and forgetting. Psychonomic Science, 23, 161-163.
???gatch, E. M., & Lazarton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
???gigbee, K. L. (1978). Some pseudo-limitations of mnemonics. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N.
Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 147-154). New York: Academic Press.

h tt p ://vn we b .hww iIso nweb .co m/ hww/res u Its/ res u Its-s ing Ie-f uIIt ex t .j h t mI?-D.. . 8/24/2005

Full text

Page 8 of 9

???%asper, L. F. (1993). The keyword method and foreign language vocabulary learning: A rationale for its use.
Foreign Language Annals, 26, 244-251.
???Qrashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San
Francisco: Alemany Press.
???%kevin,J. R. (1985). Educational applications of mnemonic pictures: Possibilities beyond your wildest
imagination. In A. A. Sheikh & K. S. Sheikh (Eds.), Imagery in education: Imagery in the educational process (pp.
63-87). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
???$evin, J. R. (1989). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Practical illustrations. In C. B. McCormick, G. E.
Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic researchm to educational applications (pp.
213-237). New York: Springer-Verlag.
???%levin, J. R., Johnson, D. D., Pittelman, S. D., Levin, K. M., Shriberg, L. K., Toms-Bronowski, S., & Hayes, B.
L. (1984). A comparison of semanticand mnemonic-based vocabulary-learning strategies. Reading Psychology, 5,
1-15.
???%levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction:
Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 156-174.
???qIcDanieI, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1984). Putting the keyword method in context. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 598-609.
???FkDaniel, M. A., Pressley, M., & Dunay, P. K. (1987). Long-term retention of vocabulary after keyword and
context learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 87-92.
???Fiery, R. (1980). The keyword method and children's vocabulary learning in the classroom. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 50, 123-136.
???&!agy,

W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for

acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19
35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
???gktt, C. E., Buttler, D. C., Blake, R. S., & Ball, J. P. (1973). The effect of interactive-image elaboration on the
acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Language Learning, 23, 197-206.
???E#aivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1971)
???kkaivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
???gkaivio,A., & Desrochers, A. (1979). Effects of an imagery mnemonic on second language recall and
comprehension. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 17-28.

???&,aivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925

nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1-25.

???Skressley,M. (1977). Children's use of the keyword method to learn simple Spanish vocabulary words.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,465-472.
???Shessley, M., & Levin, J. R. (1978). Development constraints associated with children's use of the keyword
method of foreign language vocabulary learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 359-372.
???E#ressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Keywords and vocabulary acquisition: Some words of caution about
Johnson, Adams and Brunning (1985). Education Communication and Technology, 33, 277-284.
???Skressley,M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational
Research, 52, 61-91.
???kkressley, M., Levin, J. R., Kuiper, N. A., Bryant, S. L., & Michener, S. (1982). Mnemonic versus
nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies: Additional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
693-707.
???klressley, 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

http ://vnwe b.hww i Is0nweb. co m/ hww/resu Its/res u Its-s i ngle-f uI Itext. j htmI?-D.. . 8/24/2005

Full text
acquisition (pp. 107-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Page 9 of 9

???&%essley, M., Levin, J. R., & Miller, G. E. (1981). How does the keyword method affect vocabulary
comprehension and usage? Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 213-226.
???&)ressley, M., Samuel, J., Hershey, M., Bishop, S., & Dickinson, D. (1981). Use of a mnemonic technique to
teach young children foreign language vocabulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 110-116.
???Lkohwer,W. D., Jr. (1973). Elaboration and learning in childhood and adolescence. In H. W. Reese (Ed.),
Advances in child development and behavior Vlll (pp. 1-57). New York: Academic Press.
???Lkosenheck, M. B., Levin, M.

E., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Learning botany concepts mnemonically: Seeing the

forest and the trees. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 196-203.

???$,!adoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading
comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading
(4th ed., pp. 582-601). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
???$,!adoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding
alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463-484.
???ghompson, I. (1987). Memory in language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in
language learning (pp. 43-56). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
???Bang, A. Y., & Thomas, M. H. (1992). The effect of imagery-based mnemonics on the long-term retention of
Chinese characters. Language Learning, 42, 359-376.
???Bang, 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.
WBN: 9624501954001

http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb.com/hww/resuIts/resuIts_single_fuIItext.jhtmI?_D. .. 8/24/2005