See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242345595

Psychology Students' Knowledge and Use of Mnemonics

Article  in  Teaching of Psychology · July 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0098628313487460

CITATIONS READS

30 9,265

4 authors, including:

Jennifer Mccabe
Goucher College
29 PUBLICATIONS   576 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Mccabe on 14 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching of Psychology
http://top.sagepub.com/

Psychology Students' Knowledge and Use of Mnemonics

Jennifer A. McCabe, Kelsey L. Osha, Jennifer A. Roche and Jonathan A. Susser
Teaching of Psychology 2013 40: 183 originally published online 10 May 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0098628313487460

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://top.sagepub.com/content/40/3/183

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for the Teaching of Psychology

Additional services and information for Teaching of Psychology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - May 28, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 10, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
Topical Article
Teaching of Psychology
40(3) 183-192
Psychology Students’ Knowledge ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and Use of Mnemonics DOI: 10.1177/0098628313487460
top.sagepub.com

Jennifer A. McCabe1, Kelsey L. Osha1,

Jennifer A. Roche1, and Jonathan A. Susser1

Abstract
Mnemonics are strategies that can enhance learning and memory of course material. An online survey examined psychology
students’ metacognitive awareness and self-reported behaviors regarding mnemonics. Results showed that most participants
could define mnemonics, but only a minority could describe the cognitive mechanisms involved. Participants were more familiar
with some mnemonics (acronyms and acrostics) compared to others (pegword); further, the most common sources of mnemonics
were those created by the students themselves and those provided by the instructors. Usefulness of mnemonics was rated at a
moderate level compared to other common study strategies. Finally, the ratings for mnemonics were positive and correlated with
independent measures of metacognition as well as psychology course experience. Findings are discussed in the context of increasing
mnemonics in psychology education.

Keywords
mnemonic devices, metacognition, self-regulation

Mnemonics are memory strategies that help meaningfully
organize and chunk to-be-learned information; as such, they
enhance encoding and facilitate retrieval. Examples include
acronyms and acrostics (i.e., first-letter mnemonics), method
of loci, pegword method, keyword method, and a category of
semantic-based mnemonic techniques including songs, stories,
and rhymes. Mnemonics are often used in education at the ini-
tial stage of knowledge acquisition. They may act in this early
stage as scaffolding for more permanent schematic knowledge
that develops as education advances (Bellezza, 1996). Indeed,
many psychology courses, especially the introductory course,
require the mastery of an entirely new ‘‘lexicon’’ before stu-
dents can progress into the study of more complex concepts
(Balch, 2005; Carney & Levin, 1998).
Several of the mnemonics listed previously have been
shown to benefit both short- and long-term memory in labora-
tory studies (e.g., for the keyword technique, Carney & Levin,
2008) and in classroom settings (e.g., Bloom & Lamkin, 2006;
Carney, Levin, & Levin, 1994; Saber & Johnson, 2008; Van-
Voorhis, 2002). As such, mnemonics can be a useful pedagogi-
cal tool to enhance course learning. However, the extent to
which undergraduates know about and apply mnemonic strate-
gies when choosing how to study for their courses remains a
relatively unexplored area of research (Soler & Ruiz, 1996;
Stalder, 2005). Given the empirical evidence for mnemonics’
effectiveness in enhancing memory for the course material, it
is important for educators to understand how psychology
students perceive and use mnemonics.
This topic connects to the literature on metacognition (and
more specifically, metamemory), one aspect of which is one’s
knowledge and beliefs about strategies that maximize memory
(i.e., learning how to learn) and also the choice to control study
and deploy effective strategies in real-world learning situations
(i.e., self-regulated learning; Kornell & Bjork, 2007; see
Sperling, Howard, Staley, & DuBois, 2004 for a review). The
current study specifically aimed to assess psychology students’
metacognition about the benefits of using mnemonics as a strat-
egy to help learn and remember college-level course material
as well as the extent to which they apply mnemonics during
studying.
There is mixed evidence for the degree to which college stu-
dents can accurately rate the effectiveness of various study stra-
tegies (Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009; McCabe, 2011).
Multiple studies have shown a metacognitive disconnect
between self-rated and actual effectiveness for several strate-
gies classified as ‘‘desirable difficulties’’ (i.e., those that are
initially challenging, error prone, and lead to slower learning
but enhance memory in the long term; Bjork, 1994). That is,
participants show memory benefits from these strategies on
1
Department of Psychology, Goucher College, Baltimore, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jennifer A. McCabe, Department of Psychology, Goucher College, 1021
Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD, 21204, USA.
Email: jennifer.mccabe@goucher.edu

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
184
objective measures but provide low or inconsistent ratings for
perceived effectiveness (e.g., for the testing effect, Kornell &
Son, 2009; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; for the spacing effect,
Kornell & Bjork, 2008; Susser & McCabe, 2012). However,
there is at least one ‘‘desirably difficult’’ memory strategy that
shows relatively high metacognitive awareness: the generation
effect, or memory benefit for self-generated compared to
researcher-provided materials (Begg, Vinski, Frankovich, &
Holgate, 1991; McCabe, 2011).
Although the use of mnemonics has not been traditionally
classified as a desirable difficulty, one could argue that, espe-
cially in the case of self-created mnemonics (an instance of the
generation effect, e.g. Slamecka & Graf, 1978), there is a con-
siderable expenditure of effort necessary on the front end of the
process, which should lead to memory improvement in the long
run. Relevant to the issue of metacognitive judgments, Balch
(2005) showed that although psychology students were helped
more by keyword mnemonics than by paraphrasing and repeti-
tion strategies on objective memory tests, they reported higher
helpfulness ratings for mnemonics compared to repetition but
not compared to paraphrasing. Thus, learners may not always
have the metacognitive sophistication to judge the most effective
learning methods.
Our study was designed to provide a broad view of psychol-
ogy students’ knowledge and use of mnemonics. One major
question, relevant to the previous discussion, was whether
students would show accurate metacognitive awareness of
mnemonics (similar to findings for the generation effect) or
whether they will show little knowledge of mnemonics and fail
to rate mnemonics as an effective strategy (similar to findings
for the testing and spacing effects).
Understanding the student perspective on learning strategies
such as mnemonics is an important first step for educators to
support and encourage the use of such effective techniques.
Likewise, learning about students’ beliefs regarding mnemo-
nics will increase knowledge in the realm of applied metacog-
nition and metamemory. To this end, we developed an online
survey to address the following research questions:
1. Are psychology students metacognitively aware of
mnemonics as a learning strategy?
2. What kinds of mnemonics are psychology students
most familiar with, most frequently used, and perceived
as most helpful?
3. How does the perceived usefulness of mnemonics com-
pare with other commonly applied study strategies?
4. What are the most common sources of mnemonics used
for college courses?
5. What factors contribute to the decision to use mnemo-
nics when studying?
6. Which areas of psychology are judged as most relevant
to the use of mnemonics?
7. From an individual differences perspective, what are
the relationships of mnemonic familiarity/use with (a)
demographics variables and (b) scales measuring meta-
cognitive self-regulation and elaboration strategies?
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
Teaching of Psychology 40(3)
Method
Participants
Participants were 481 undergraduates who were currently
enrolled in, or had taken, at least one college-level psychol-
ogy course. They were recruited from 64 institutions via Inter-
net postings and social networking sites to complete an online
survey. The mean age of the participants was 22.12 (standard
deviation [SD] ¼ 6.49; median ¼ 20), and the mean years of
college completed was 2.57 (SD ¼ 1.27; median ¼ 2). The
sample was 76.1% female and had a self-reported mean grade
point average (GPA) of 3.30 (SD ¼ 0.52). Regarding institu-
tion type, 22.2% attended a community college, 23.9%
attended a 4-year college, and 53.4% attended a 4-year uni-
versity. To preview the results, neither institution type nor
years of college completed was related to any mnemonics-
relevant variables.
Specific to psychology, 31% of the sample reported major-
ing in psychology and 69% reported a major other than psy-
chology. The mean number of psychology courses taken was
2.85 (SD ¼ 2.92; median ¼ 1; range: 1–16). We further split
the sample into those who had taken an introductory psychol-
ogy course only (Intro; 52.1%) and those who had taken at least
one psychology course beyond the introductory level (Introþ;
47.9%).
Materials and Procedures
We invited potential participants via e-mail to participate in a
web-based survey that took approximately 15 min to complete.
In the invitation e-mail, they were given a link that directed
them to the consent form and then the survey items.
The survey began with questions relating to knowledge
about mnemonics. First, the participants were asked, ‘‘What
is a MNEMONIC (or MNEMONIC DEVICE)?’’ in a free-
response format. Then, following the presentation of a standard
definition of mnemonics, they were asked, ‘‘Why (and/or how)
do mnemonics help memory?’’ again using a free-response
format.
Next, the survey presented the name, definition, and exam-
ple for five categories of mnemonics, each followed by Likert-
type rating scales assessing level of familiarity, level of use,
and level of perceived helpfulness for that particular mnemonic
(see Table l). The mnemonic types described in the survey were
acronyms and acrostics (i.e., first-letter mnemonics), method of
loci, pegword method, keyword method, and a category of
semantic-based mnemonic techniques that we labeled songs/
stories/rhymes.
For acronyms and acrostics, the following information was
provided:
Acronym definition: An abbreviation or word formed
from the initial letters or the letters of the successive
or major parts of a term.
Example: ROY G BIV for the colors of the rainbow; red,
orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
McCabe et al.
Acrostic Definition: A poem or series of lines in which
certain letters, usually the first in each line, form a
name, motto, or message when read in sequence.
Example: Every Good Boy Does Fine, for the notes on the
lines of the treble clef; E, G, B, D, F.
For Keyword mnemonics, the following information was
provided:
Keyword definition: A new word/concept is associated
with a similar sounding, familiar word (i.e., keyword).
The meaning of the original word is linked to the
keyword through an interactive mental image.
Example: To remember harpaxophobia, the fear of robbers,
use the keyword harp to create a mental image of robbers
stealing a harp (Carney & Levin, 2008).
For method of loci, the following information was provided:
Method of loci definition: Material is associated with
memorized spatial places to establish order and help
in recollection.
Example: One might remember a grocery list by imagin-
ing each food item along the route one takes to school
or work. One may visualize a loaf of bread on the door-
step, eggs cracked on the car window, and milk spilled
on the office desk. By taking a ‘‘mental walk’’ along
this path one can retrieve the information.
For the pegword mnemonic, the following information was
provided:
Pegword mnemonic definition: Uses rhyming words to
represent numbers or order by providing visual images
that can be associated with facts or events.
Example: First memorize the number/word pairs, then:
1. gun: Visualize the first item being fired from a gun.
2. zoo: Visualize an association between the second thing
and a zoo.
3. tree: Visualize the third item growing from a tree.
4. door: Visualize the fourth item associated with a door.
5. hive: Visualize the fifth item associated with a hive or
with bees.
6. bricks: Visualize the sixth item associated with bricks.
7. heaven: Visualize the seventh item associated with
heaven.
8. plate: Visualize the eighth item on a plate as if it is
food.
9. wine: Visualize a glass containing the ninth item.
10. hen: Visualize the tenth item associated with a chicken.
For Song/story/rhyme mnemonics, the following informa-
tion was provided:
Song mnemonic definition: Write new lyrics to a well-
known tune, or write an original song using to-be-
learned information.
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
185
Story mnemonic definition: Write a story with the to-be-
learned words highlighted.
Rhyme mnemonic definition: Create a rhyme or poem
using the to-be-learned information.
Rhyme example: To remember the illfated wives of
Henry VIII:
Divorced, beheaded, died,
Divorced, beheaded, survived
For each mnemonic type, the level of familiarity was
assessed on a 5-point scale, with ‘‘1’’ indicating new to me and
‘‘5’’ indicating very familiar. The level of use was assessed on a
5-point scale, with ‘‘1’’ indicating never use and ‘‘5’’ indicating
often use. Level of perceived helpfulness was assessed on a
5-point scale, with ‘‘1’’ indicating not at all helpful and ‘‘5’’
indicating extremely helpful.
Next, the survey listed nine commonly used study strategies,
one of which was use of mnemonics; for each strategy,
the participants rated on a 5-point scale (‘‘1’’ ¼ not at all,
‘‘5’’ ¼ extremely) how useful they found each strategy. Table
2 contains the specific strategies included in the survey.
Participants then responded to survey items measuring
various aspects of general mnemonics use, on a scale from
1 (never) to 5 (very often): ‘‘On average, how often do you use
mnemonics while studying for your courses?’’ and ‘‘How often
have you encountered mnemonics in your college courses?’’
We also included the question, ‘‘To what degree does your
current use of mnemonic devices reflect the extent to which you
encountered them in your college courses?’’ on a scale from
1 (not at all) to 5 (completely).
The next question set asked participants where the mnemo-
nics they use come from (i.e., their source), on a scale from
1 (never) to 5 (very often). Table 3 contains the full list of the
sources included.
The final set of items regarding general mnemonics use
assessed a variety of factors that may impact the likelihood
of choosing to use mnemonics in specific academic situations,
such as, ‘‘There is a lot of terminology to learn for a course’’
and ‘‘The instructor of the course uses them.’’ These were rated
on a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating not likely to use mnemo-
nics, 3 (i.e., the neutral value) indicating equally likely to use
or not use mnemonics, and 5 indicating very likely to use mne-
monics. Table 4 contains the complete list of factors included in
the survey.
Specific to the discipline of psychology, we asked partici-
pants, ‘‘For which of the following psychology topics do you
think mnemonics would be most helpful?’’ For this item, we
developed a list of 17 major psychology topics derived mostly
from consultations of Introductory Psychology textbook chap-
ter headings (see Table 5 for topics); participants could check
as many topics as they desired in order to answer this question.
Next, the survey presented two subscales of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991, 1993; see also Duncan
& McKeachie, 2005), with the goal of measuring the use of
deeper processing learning strategies. The two scales used were
186
elaboration (ELAB) and metacognitive self-regulation (MSR),
which in the current study had an average a level of .75, similar
to the average a of .78 reported in in Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,
and McKeachie (1993). Eighteen items (6 from ELAB and
12 from MSR) were included. Two sample items from the MSR
scale are ‘‘If course readings are difficult to understand,
I change the way I read the material.’’ ‘‘When I study for this
class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in
each study period.’’ Two sample items from the ELAB scale
are ‘‘I try to relate ideas in this subject to those in other courses
whenever possible.’’ ‘‘When reading for this class, I try to
relate the material to what I already know.’’ Each item was
rated using a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all true of me)
to 7 (very true of me).
The culminating section of the survey consisted of demo-
graphics items, including the specific psychology courses that
participants were currently enrolled in and/or had already
completed, along with years of college completed, major, GPA,
institution, age, and sex.
Results
Knowledge About Mnemonics
Two of the authors coded the free-response answers to the
question, ‘‘What is a MNEMONIC (or MNEMONIC DEV-
ICE)?’’ using two categories: (1) an inaccurate definition or
an answer of ‘‘Don’t know’’; and (2) a reasonably accurate def-
inition. Coder agreement was near 100%; in the few cases of
dispute, the coders discussed the answer and came to an agree-
ment. Using this coding scheme, 81.1% of the participants
provided a reasonably accurate definition and 18.9% did not.
We further assessed responses to this question with regard to psy-
chology major status and also with regard to whether a cognition-
related psychology course had been taken. The chi-square analysis
was nonsignificant for major (p ¼ .106) and also for Intro versus
Intro þ courses (p ¼ .072) but was significant for cognition course
completion, w2(1) ¼ 15.69, p < .001. Of the 59 students who had
taken a cognition course, 100% could provide an accurate definition,
whereas only 78.4% of the 422 students who had not taken a cogni-
tion course could accurately define mnemonics.
Using a similar coding procedure as described above, we
evaluated the survey question, ‘‘Why (and/or how) do mnemo-
nics help memory?’’ We split the responses into 2 categories:
(1) no cognition-relevant terminology and (2) inclusion of
cognition terminology (e.g., encoding, chunking, storage,
retrieval, elaboration). Only 8.9% of the participants included
cognition-relevant terms in their answers. This variable was not
significantly related to psychology major status, Intro versus
Introþ, or having taken a cognition course (all ps > .05).
Specific Mnemonics: Familiarity, Frequency of Use, and
Helpfulness
For each of the five specific mnemonic strategies, we asked
participants to rate on a 5-point scale the level of familiarity,
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
Teaching of Psychology 40(3)
the level of use, and perceived helpfulness. Means and standard
deviations are presented in Table 1, which is arranged in rough
order from the most familiar/used/helpful mnemonics toward
the top of the table to the least familiar/used/helpful mnemo-
nics toward the bottom.
We computed a repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) on the familiarity ratings for the five mnemonic
types. Results showed a significant omnibus F-test, F(4,
1920) ¼ 192.74, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .29. Using the Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple contrasts, we found that all pairwise
contrasts were significant (all ps < .003), except the contrast
of method of loci to pegword (p ¼ .179). That is, the most
highly rated category was acronym/acrostic (M ¼ 4.43, SD
¼ 0.95), followed by song/story/rhyme (M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼
1.13), and then the keyword method (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼
1.27). The least familiar mnemonics were method of loci (M
¼ 2.91, SD ¼ 1.43) and pegword (M ¼ 2.72, SD ¼ 1.40; see
Table 1).
In a parallel analysis, we compared ratings of level of use for
the mnemonics, F(4, 1920) ¼ 168.83, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .26. After
the Bonferroni adjustment, the follow-up tests showed that all
pairwise contrasts were significant (all ps < .01), except the
contrast of method of loci to pegword (p ¼ .152). These results
mirror those of the familiarity ratings presented above. Again,
the acronym/acrostic category was rated highest (M ¼ 3.53,
SD ¼ 1.11), but in this analysis the keyword mnemonic was
rated second highest (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 1.27). The pegword
method was rated the lowest (M ¼ 2.03, SD ¼ 1.13; see
Table 1).
A final repeated measures ANOVA for ratings of helpful-
ness was also significant, F(1, 1920) ¼ 218.96, p < .001, Zp2
¼ .31. Follow-up tests using the Bonferroni adjustment showed
all pairwise contrasts were significant (all ps < .001), except
method of loci to pegword (p ¼ 1.00) and keyword to song/
story/rhyme (p ¼ .286). Acronym/acrostic was rated to be most
helpful (M ¼ 4.07, SD ¼ 0.93), followed by keyword (M ¼
3.60, SD ¼ 1.08) and song/story/rhyme (M ¼ 3.46, SD ¼
1.16), then method of loci (M ¼ 2.57, SD ¼ 1.25) and pegword
(M ¼ 2.50, SD ¼ 1.16; see Table 1).
Mnemonics in the Context of Other Study Strategies
We asked participants to rate the usefulness of nine common
study strategies, including the use of mnemonics, in order to
evaluate how mnemonics compared to the perceived usefulness
of other strategies. Out of the nine strategies listed, using mne-
monic devices was numerically ranked in seventh place (see
Table 2, which is arranged with the strategies listed in order
from most to least useful). Planned comparisons of mnemonics
ratings to each of the other study strategies, on the 5-point
scale, showed that using mnemonic devices was rated signifi-
cantly lower compared to rereading notes, t(480) ¼ 5.32, p <
.001, relating material to myself, t(480) ¼ 3.63, p < .001, doing
practice problems, t(480) ¼ 6.67, p < .001, self-testing, t(476)
¼ 6.41, p < .001, and studying the material over multiple ses-
sions (i.e., spacing), t(480) ¼ 5.20, p < .001. Using mnemonic
McCabe et al.
Table 1. Means (Standard Deviations) for Five Types of Mnemonics
on Ratings of Familiarity, Level of Use, and Helpfulness.
Mnemonic Familiarity Level of Use Helpfulness
a a a
Acronym/acrostic 4.43 (0.95) 3.53 (1.11) 4.07 (0.93)
Keyword 3.75b (1.27) 3.24b (1.27) 3.60b (1.08)
Song/story/rhyme 3.95c (1.13) 2.98c (1.23) 3.46b (1.16)
Method of loci 2.91d (1.43) 2.19d (1.29) 2.57c (1.25)
Pegword 2.72d (1.40) 2.03d (1.13) 2.50c (1.16)
Notes. All variables measured on a 5-point rating scale. For familiarity: 1 ¼ new
to me; 3 ¼ slightly familiar; 5 ¼ very familiar; for Level of Use: 1 ¼ never use; 3 ¼
sometimes use; 5 ¼ often use; for helpfulness: 1 ¼ not at all helpful; 3 ¼ moderately
helpful; 5 ¼ extremely helpful. Different superscripts denote significantly differ-
ent means within each rating scale, all ps < .01. Acronym/acrostic and keyword
familiarity means were the only ones significantly correlated with grade point
average (GPA; ps < .01).
devices was rated significantly higher only compared to
rereading text, t(480) ¼ 5.09, p < .001.
Ratings of General Mnemonics Use
For the item asking how often participants use mnemonics
while studying for their courses, the mean was 3.28 (SD ¼
0.91; median ¼ 3) on a 5-point scale where ‘‘3’’ corresponded
to sometimes and ‘‘4’’ corresponded to often.
Participants were also asked about how often they have
encountered mnemonics in their college courses; on a 5-point
scale where ‘‘2’’ corresponded to rarely and ‘‘3’’ corresponded
to sometimes, the mean was 2.97 (SD ¼ 0.88; median ¼ 3).
As a final item in this category, we asked ‘‘To what degree
does your current use of mnemonic devices reflect the extent to
which you encountered them in your college courses?’’ On a
5-point scale where ‘‘2’’ corresponded to a little and ‘‘3’’
corresponded to somewhat, the mean was 2.72 (SD ¼ 0.94;
median ¼ 3).
Additional analyses using these survey items are presented
in the Individual Differences Analyses section.
Sources of Mnemonics
We asked participants about the sources from which the mne-
monics they use were obtained. They rated the frequency of
getting their mnemonics from each of the five sources (see
Table 3). A repeated measures ANOVA using source type as
the factor and ratings as the dependent variable was significant,
F(4, 1856) ¼ 263.30, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .36. The source with high-
est ratings was I create my own mnemonics (M ¼ 3.57, SD ¼
1.20), followed by I use mnemonics provided by instructors
(M ¼ 3.19, SD ¼ 1.13), then I share mnemonics with my friends
(M ¼ 2.85, SD ¼ 1.32), I use mnemonics provided in a textbook
(M ¼ 2.73, SD ¼ 1.13), and finally I search for mnemonics
online (M ¼ 1.56, SD ¼ 0.89). Follow-up contrasts using the
Bonferroni correction showed that all contrasts were significant
(all ps < .001), except the comparison of textbook to friend
sources (p ¼ 1.00).
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
187
Table 2. Ratings for Usefulness of Study Strategies.
Study Strategy M SD
Doing practice problems 4.23a 0.89
Self-testing (practicing recall) 4.20a 0.91
Studying the same material over multiple 4.17a 1.00
sessions (instead of in one session only)
Rereading class notes 4.20a 0.90
Relating material to myself 4.07a 1.04
Making outlines or study guides 3.96 1.12
Using mnemonic devices 3.87 1.01
Making and using flashcards 3.83 1.23
Rereading textbook 3.53a 1.12
Notes. All variables measured on a 5-point rating scale, where 1 ¼ not at all useful,
3 ¼ moderately useful, 5 ¼ extremely useful. a Mean rating significantly different
from using mnemonic devices, all ps < .001. Grade point average (GPA) was not
significantly correlated with any of the study strategies. SD ¼ standard deviation.
Factors Involved in the Decision to Use Mnemonics
For eight factors, we asked participants to rate on a 5-point
scale how each would influence their decision to use or not
to use mnemonics as a study strategy (see Table 4). We com-
pared the mean of each factor to the neutral value of ‘‘3’’ using
a series of one-sample t tests. All eight factors were rated
significantly higher than ‘‘3’’ (ps < .001), indicating that all the
factors were endorsed as encouraging mnemonics usage.
The most strongly endorsed factor was the instructor of the
course uses them (M ¼ 4.15, SD ¼ 1.01), followed by the
course material requires rote memorization (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼
1.06) and there is a lot of new terminology to learn for a course
(M ¼ 3.73, SD ¼ 1.12).
Mnemonics in Relation to Specific Psychology Topics
Given that all participants were currently enrolled in, or had
taken, at least one college-level psychology course, we
assessed for which specific psychology topics they felt mnemo-
nics would be most helpful (see Table 5). The most frequently
chosen topics were memory (74.2% of participants) and biolo-
gical concepts (68.4%), followed by psychological disorders
(55.9%) and learning (55.1%). The least frequently chosen
topics were motivation (19.3%) and positive (12.5%).
Individual Differences Analyses
To examine individual differences in relation to mnemonics,
we conducted Pearson correlations between mnemonics-
relevant survey items and (1) general demographic variables;
(2) psychology-specific demographics variables; and (3) MSR
and ELAB scales (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991). When one
variable was dichotomous, we conducted ANOVAs. Because
there were a large number of analyses examined, we chose a
more conservative a level of .01 to evaluate statistical signifi-
cance. Only significant findings are presented below.
Beginning with general demographics, GPA was signifi-
cantly correlated only with acronym and acrostic familiarity
188 Teaching of Psychology 40(3)

Table 3. Ratings for Source From Which Mnemonics are Obtained. Table 5. Percentage of Participants Endorsing the Helpfulness of
Mnemonics in Various Psychology Topics.
Mnemonics Source M SD
Psychology Topic % Sample
I create my own mnemonics 3.57a 1.20
I use mnemonics provided by instructors 3.19b 1.13 Memory 74.2%
I share mnemonics with my friends 2.85c 1.32 Biological concepts (e.g., brain terms) 68.4%
I use mnemonics provided in a textbook 2.73c 1.13 Psychological disorders 55.9%
I search for mnemonics online 1.56d 0.89 Learning 55.1%
History of psychology (perspectives/schools 45.5%
Notes. All variables measured on a 5-point rating scale: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ rarely, 3 ¼ of thought/important people)
sometimes, 4 ¼ often, 5 ¼ very often. Different superscripts denote significantly Personality 45.3%
different means (ps < .001). SD ¼ standard deviation.
Research methods 42.0%
Development 37.4%
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Ratings of Factors in the Language 35.8%
Decision to Use Mnemonics. Therapy 34.5%
Sensation and perception 33.5%
Factor M SD Statistics 28.3%
Intelligence 27.7%
The instructor of the course uses them 4.15 1.01 Social 27.2%
The course material requires rote memorization 4.05 1.06 Health 25.6%
There is a lot of new terminology to learn for a course 3.81 1.17 Motivation 19.3%
There is an overall large amount of material to learn for 3.73 1.12 Positive 12.5%
a course
The upcoming exam is more difficult than an average exam 3.71 1.14
My peers are using mnemonics to study for the course 3.62 1.13
There are complicated ideas or concepts to be learned 3.63 1.18 familiarity, F(1, 464) ¼ 11.36, p ¼ .001, Zp2 ¼ .02 (psychol-
I have extra time to prepare my study materials 3.24 1.16 ogy: M ¼ 4.23, SD ¼ 0.97; nonpsychology: M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼
1.17); and frequency of using mnemonics, F(1, 464) ¼ 10.12,
Notes. Ratings on a 5-point scale, 1 ¼ not likely to use mnemonics; 3 ¼ equally
likely to use or not use mnemonics; 5 ¼ very likely to use mnemonics. All means are p ¼ .002, Zp2 ¼ .02 (psychology: M ¼ 3.46, SD ¼ 1.02; non-
significantly higher than the neutral ‘‘3’’ response, ps < .001. SD ¼ standard psychology: M ¼ 3.19, SD ¼ 0.84).
deviation. A parallel set of ANCOVAs comparing participants who
had taken only an introductory psychology course to those with
ratings, r(320) ¼ .222, p < .001, and also keyword familiarity, more advanced psychology course experience revealed that
r(320) ¼ .151, p ¼ .007. Age only showed significant correla- those who had taken more psychology courses had higher
tions with acronym and acrostic familiarity, r(444) ¼ .156, means in the following variables: acronym and acrostic famil-
p ¼ .001, but in a negative direction. Thus, older students iarity, F(1, 465) ¼ 15.60, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .03 (Intro: M ¼ 4.31,
reported lower familiarity with this mnemonic technique. SD ¼ 1.03; Introþ: M ¼ 4.58, SD ¼ 0.80); acronym and acros-
Turning now to psychology-specific variables, we chose to tic level of use, F(1, 465) ¼ 10.25, p ¼ .001, Zp2 ¼ .02 (Intro:
run Pearson partial correlations, controlling for years of college M ¼ 3.39, SD ¼ 1.10; Introþ: M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.10); acronym
completed, and we ran ANOVAs with years of college com- and acrostic helpfulness, F(1, 465) ¼ 8.29, p ¼ .004, Zp2 ¼ .02
pleted as a covariate. These statistical control methods allowed (Intro: M ¼ 3.98, SD ¼ 0.95; Introþ: M ¼ 4.18, SD ¼ 0.88);
for a cleaner assessment of the psychology-specific variables, song/story/rhyme familiarity, F(1, 465) ¼ 13.25, p < .001,
separate from the potentially confounding factor of general col- Zp2 ¼ .03 (Intro: M ¼ 3.76, SD ¼ 1.15; Introþ: M ¼ 4.17,
lege experience. We report below only the analyses that were SD ¼ 1.06); mnemonics usefulness, F(1, 465) ¼ 11.39, p ¼
significant at the .01 level after controlling for years of college .001, Zp2 ¼ .02 (Intro: M ¼ 3.76, SD ¼ 1.05; Introþ: M ¼
completed. 4.01, SD ¼ 0.96); and mnemonics frequency of use, F(1,
The number of psychology courses taken was positively cor- 465) ¼ 17.73, p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .04 (Intro: M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼
related with several items: acronym and acrostic familiarity, 0.87; Introþ: M ¼ 3.42, SD ¼ 0.94).
r(313) ¼ .197, p < .001, song/story/rhyme familiarity, r(313) In the next set of analyses, we computed correlations
¼ .195, p < .001, frequency of using mnemonics, r(313) ¼ between mnemonics variables and the MSR and ELAB scales
.190, p ¼ .001, and frequency of encountering mnemonics in (MSLQ, Pintrich et al., 1991). To preview, numerous correla-
college-level courses, r(313) ¼ .149, p ¼ .008. tions were significant, even at our more conservative a level,
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) comparing psychol- and all were positive.
ogy versus other majors on the mnemonics survey items, con- We first present mnemonics variables that were correlated
trolling for college years completed as a covariate revealed a with both scales: acronym and acrostic familiarity, level of use,
significant advantage of psychology majors for the following and helpfulness (all ps < .001); keyword familiarity (p ¼ .002
variables: acronym and acrostic familiarity, F(1, 464) ¼ 6.74, MSR; p < .001 for ELAB), level of use (p ¼ .004 for MSR; p <
p ¼ .010, Zp2 ¼ .01 (psychology: M ¼ 4.58, SD ¼ 0.80; non- .001 for ELAB), and helpfulness (p ¼ .001 for MSR; p < .001
psychology: M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 1.01); song/story/rhyme for ELAB); method of loci familiarity (all ps < .001), level of

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
McCabe et al.
use (p ¼ .006 for MSR; p ¼ .004 for ELAB), and helpfulness
(p ¼ .001 for MSR; p < .001 for ELAB); song/story/rhyme
level of use (p ¼ .006 for MSR; p < .001 for ELAB); mnemo-
nics level of usefulness (ps < .001); mnemonics frequency of
use (ps < .001), mnemonics frequency of encounter (ps <
.001); and the degree to which current use of mnemonics
reflects past experiences (ps < .001).
The only mnemonics-relevant survey item that uniquely
correlated with MSR was pegword level of use (p ¼ .001). Two
survey items were correlated only with ELAB: song/story/
rhyme familiarity and helpfulness (ps < .001).
Discussion
We undertook this online survey study to examine psychology
students’ knowledge, metacognitive beliefs, and reported use
of mnemonics in relation to their college-level courses. We dis-
cuss summaries and implications of our findings in the follow-
ing section, organized by our seven research questions.
1. Are psychology students metacognitively aware of
mnemonics as a learning strategy?
We found that the majority (81.1%) of the participants could
provide a reasonably accurate definition of mnemonics, when
polled in a free-response format. Thus, most undergraduates
seem to have basic knowledge of mnemonics as memory aides.
Interestingly, there was a significant relationship between
accuracy of answering this question and whether or not partici-
pants had completed a cognition course; every participant with
cognition course experience answered accurately, compared to
78.4% of those without this experience. This may suggest that
students are learning about mnemonics in cognition-related
courses, and/or that those students choosing to take such
courses are particularly interested in (and knowledgeable
about) memory strategies.
In an attempt to further probe psychology students’ knowl-
edge about mnemonics, we asked them more specifically why
(and/or how) mnemonics benefit memory. In their answers,
we coded for the presence or absence of cognition-relevant ter-
minology (e.g., encoding, chunking, retrieval). Only a minority
(8.9%) of participants provided answers using these types of
terms, and, surprisingly, this was not related to psychology-
specific experience, including taking a cognition course. Thus,
most psychology students do not have the knowledge needed to
explain specific memory mechanisms or systems involved in
the use of mnemonics. Instructors, particularly those teaching
units on human memory, may consider these findings when
deciding how much to teach (and test on) conceptual explana-
tions for why mnemonics work to help memory.
We also included survey questions to gain additional informa-
tion about how psychology students rate their use and level of
encounter with mnemonics. Ratings from these items suggest that
participants are only sometimes using mnemonics when studying,
only sometimes have encountered mnemonics in their courses,
and somewhat feel that the degree of their current use of
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
189
mnemonics reflects the extent to which they have encountered
them in their college courses. These ratings show that there is
room for improvement with regard to the presentation of mnemo-
nics within college courses (e.g., Carney, Levin, & Levin, 1994)
and also the actual study behavior of using mnemonics (e.g.,
Shimamura, 1984).
2. What kinds of mnemonics are psychology students
most familiar with, most frequently used and perceived
as most helpful?
When we asked participants to provide ratings of familiar-
ity, frequency of use, and perceived helpfulness for five cate-
gories of specific mnemonic techniques, the results were
quite consistent across categories (see Table 1). Clearly, the
most familiar, used, and helpful technique was the category
of first-letter mnemonics (acronyms and acrostics). This is con-
sistent with empirical evidence for the benefits of first-letter
mnemonics (Bloom & Lamkin, 2006; Lakin, Giesler, Morris,
& Vosmik, 2007; Stalder, 2005; Stalder & Olson, 2011).
Although these mnemonics are popular and easy to use, some
evidence suggests they may not be as useful as other, more
effortful, mnemonic techniques (e.g., Carlson, Zimmer, &
Glover, 1981; Pressley & Mullally, 1984).
The keyword technique and the song/story/rhyme category
were the next two most highly rated mnemonics. Although little
empirical research has been published on song, story, and/or
rhyme mnemonics (see VanVoorhis, 2002 for research on song
mnemonics in a statistics course), there is strong evidence of the
effectiveness of the keyword method, as applied to psychology-
relevant materials, from studies of both shorter and longer term
memory (e.g., Balch, 2005; Carney & Levin, 1998, 2008;
McCabe, in preparation). Thus, it is encouraging that psychology
students rate keyword mnemonics as among the more familiar,
used, and helpful mnemonic types. However, there is certainly
an opportunity to further increase student knowledge and use of
the keyword method. Educators may consider increasing specific
instruction on this technique, particularly for learning brain termi-
nology (Balch, 2005; Carney & Levin, 1998; McCabe, in
preparation).
At the lower end of the ratings (and not significantly differ-
ent from each other) were the method of loci and pegword tech-
niques. Empirical research on the effectiveness of these
techniques, particularly in relation to psychology courses, is
sparse. Overall, these appear to be less well-known and cer-
tainly less researched techniques.
3. How does the perceived usefulness of mnemonics com-
pare with other commonly applied study strategies?
Out of the nine study strategies, the mean rating of use-
fulness for mnemonics was numerically ranked seventh (see
Table 2). Five strategies, including doing practice problems
and self-testing, were rated significantly more useful than using
mnemonics. Only one strategy, rereading textbook, was sig-
nificantly lower than using mnemonics. Although these data
do imply that students view several study strategies as more
190
effective than mnemonics, it is important to note that the mean
for mnemonics usefulness was 3.87 on a 5-point scale, where
‘‘3’’ indicated moderately useful. Thus, psychology students
overall endorsed the use of mnemonics as useful but not as
strongly as several other commonly used study strategies.
These data do not present a clear picture with respect to the
question of a metacognitive disconnect between mnemonics’
effectiveness and perceived helpfulness. Despite high awareness
of what mnemonic devices are, and empirical evidence of their
effectiveness, the moderate levels of perceived usefulness and
actual use of these strategies are at least somewhat consistent
with other research, demonstrating a metacognitive disconnect
between individuals’ knowledge and utilization of ‘‘desirably
difficult’’ study strategies (e.g., Susser & McCabe, 2012; but see
Begg et al., 1991). Yet, further research is needed to clarify, for a
broader variety of mnemonics, whether students’ perceptions of
effectiveness match actual effectiveness on memory tests.
4. What are the most common sources of mnemonics used
for college courses?
By far, the most frequently encountered source of mnemo-
nics for college courses was the student himself or herself; that
is, participants reported creating their own mnemonics for use
in studying the course material. The second most frequently
encountered source of mnemonics was the instructor of the
course. Lower rated sources included friends, textbooks, and
online searches (see Table 3).
It is interesting and encouraging that self-created mnemonics
were the most frequently used source, given the evidence of a
generation effect when comparing self-generated mnemonics
to instructor-provided mnemonics (for acrostics, see Bloom &
Lamkin, 2006; for keywords, see McCabe, in preparation).
Self-created mnemonics are also likely to be more relevant to
students’ self-schemas, thus enhancing their memorability due
to the self-reference effect (e.g., Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker,
1977), which itself is a specific instance of the well-
established depth of processing principle in memory (e.g., Craik
& Lockhart, 1972).
The fact that students rated instructors as the second ranked
source for mnemonics suggests that students do acquire mne-
monics via classroom exposure and do seem to make use of
instructor-provided mnemonics when studying. Furthermore,
these data support the increased inclusion of mnemonics in
course materials and assignments. Instructor-provided mnemo-
nics have the advantage of being consistently accurate and of
high quality and may be especially effective when provided
to students in the context of particularly difficult course mate-
rial for which self-developed mnemonics would be less optimal
(Bellezza, 1996).
5. What factors contribute to the decision to use mnemo-
nics when studying?
Each of the eight factors included in the survey was rated
higher than the neutral point on the scale, in the direction of
increasing the likelihood of using mnemonics (see Table 4).
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
Teaching of Psychology 40(3)
The most endorsed factor was the instructor of the course uses
them, which we hope provides even stronger encouragement
for instructors to include mnemonics in their courses. Also,
rated at a relatively high level were the factors of the course
material requires rote memorization and there is a lot of new
terminology to learn for the course. These latter factors seem
particularly pertinent to introductory psychology courses, in
which students are exposed to a wealth of novel information
and concepts that set the stage for more in-depth, advanced
learning. Thus, introductory courses may be especially appro-
priate targets for the integration of mnemonics.
6. Which areas of psychology are judged as most relevant
to the use of mnemonics?
By far, the two most frequently chosen psychology topics that
would be helped by the use of mnemonics were memory and
biological concepts (e.g., brain terms), followed by psychologi-
cal disorders and learning (see Table 5). On the one hand, it is
possible that students feel there is a great deal of new terminol-
ogy to learn in these topics, a process that could be helped by
mnemonics; alternatively, students may have already encoun-
tered mnemonics most frequently in these particular areas. The
latter situation seems particularly likely for brain terminology,
which has been a topic used for empirical research on mnemo-
nics (Carney & Levin, 1998) and which may be particularly
amenable to self-created and/or instructor-provided mnemonics.
The top ranking of memory as a mnemonic-friendly topic may be
less a choice related to the content of typical course content
related to memory but more a choice indicating the close link
of mnemonics themselves to the study of memory.
7. From an individual differences perspective, what are the
relationships of mnemonic familiarity/use with (a) demo-
graphics variables and (b) scales measuring metacogni-
tive self-regulation and elaboration strategies?
In addition to describing how the entire sample of partici-
pants responded to the survey questions, we also examined the
data from an individual differences approach. To that end, we
conducted analyses to explore the relationships of mnemonics-
relevant survey items with demographic variables and also
independently validated scales of MSR and ELAB (MSLQ;
Pintrich et al., 1991).
Starting with general demographic factors, there were no
clear patterns of correlations, except that GPA was positively
correlated with familiarity of two mnemonic strategies (acro-
nym and acrostic, keyword), and age was inversely correlated
with acronym and acrostic familiarity. We were surprised by
the lack of GPA correlations with mnemonics-relevant and
study-strategy variables, given that Balch (2001) reported a
significant correlation between elaborative encoding strategy
use and course performance. Regarding the age correlation,
we can only speculate that older (i.e., nontraditional) students
would have had fewer opportunities to encounter acronyms and
acrostics in college-level courses.
McCabe et al.
More interestingly, we found several significant relationships
of psychology-specific demographic variables with mnemonics-
relevant items, even after controlling for years of college com-
pleted. Students who had taken more psychology courses were
also likely to provide higher ratings of familiarity for acronym
and acrostic and song/story/rhyme mnemonics. In addition, they
tended to report higher frequency of using mnemonics and, per-
haps most tellingly, a higher frequency of encountering mnemo-
nics in their college courses. Similar results were found when we
compared psychology majors to nonmajors, in that majors
reported higher ratings of the above variables, with the exception
of frequency of encountering mnemonics in courses, which was
not different for majors versus nonmajors.
A few more variables were shown to be important when
comparing participants who had taken only an introductory
psychology course with those who had taken coursework
beyond the introductory level. In these comparisons, students
with beyond introductory psychology coursework showed
higher ratings for acronym and acrostic familiarity, level of
use, and helpfulness; song/story/rhyme familiarity; mnemonics
usefulness, and mnemonics frequency of use. Overall, it
appears that additional psychology course experience is a pos-
itive predictor of various aspects of mnemonics use, suggesting
that students are either learning more about mnemonics as they
advance to higher level psychology courses and/or that their
metacognitive sophistication (i.e., awareness and choice to use
mnemonics) is increasing with more advanced coursework.
Turning now to the correlations of mnemonics variables with
the MSR and ELAB scales, we predicted that participants who
rated themselves as self-aware and strategic learners on these
scales would also be more familiar with, and more likely to use,
mnemonics in college courses. Indeed, we found numerous sig-
nificant positive correlations between one or, in most cases, both
of these scales and our mnemonics variables, including ratings of
acronym and acrostic, keyword, method of loci, and song/story/
rhyme mnemonics. Further, both scales were correlated with
general mnemonics ratings of usefulness, frequency of use, fre-
quency of encounter in courses, and degree to which current use
of mnemonics reflects past course experiences. These findings
demonstrate a consistent connection between the constructs of
metacognitive self-regulation (i.e., knowing when to switch to
a different strategy, awareness of ongoing learning success or
failure) and elaboration (i.e., use of study strategies that make
links among different sources of information), with both specific
and general ratings of mnemonics. Although necessarily relying
on self-report, we feel these are important and validating results
to show the overlap of mnemonics knowledge and use with more
broad constructs relevant to metacognition and metamemory
(see McCabe, 2011; Susser & McCabe, 2012, for similar results
with regard to other study strategies).
Conclusion
Taken together, these online survey results provide important
information regarding psychology students’ real-world knowl-
edge and use of mnemonics. Given the established empirical
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
191
evidence for the effectiveness of mnemonics and the direct
relevance of mnemonics to specific topics in the field of
psychology (most notably human learning, memory, and more
generally, cognition), psychology educators may consider
increasing instruction in mnemonics. Our results contribute to
this endeavor by showing that psychology students tend to
know the ‘‘what’’ but not the ‘‘how’’ of mnemonics, are more
familiar with some mnemonic techniques than others, rate the
usefulness of mnemonics at a moderate level compared to other
study strategies, and are most likely to use mnemonics that are
self-created or provided by their instructors.
Research has shown that explicit instruction in memory
improvement techniques can improve academic performance
and alter specific study behaviors (e.g., Fleming, 2002; Tuck-
man, 2003). Several researcher–educators in psychology have
endorsed the inclusion of mnemonic techniques as an integrated
part of course instruction (e.g., Carney et al., 1994; Shimamura,
1984). More broadly, training in mnemonics has the potential to
impact students’ lives beyond the classroom, as it is a memory
skill easily transferable to daily life. In light of the results pre-
sented here, and prior research on the topic, efforts to improve
students’ knowledge of mnemonics would support the more
widespread use of mnemonics as an effective learning strategy.
Author Notes’
Jennifer A. Roche is now at Maastricht University, Germany. Jonathan
A. Susser is now at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Por-
tions of this research were presented at the 18th Annual APS-STP
Teaching Institute, at the 23rd Annual Association for Psychological
Science Convention, Washington, DC.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Balch, W. R. (2001). Study tips: How helpful do introductory psychol-
ogy students find them? Teaching of Psychology, 28, 272–274. doi:
10.1207/S15328023TOP2804_09
Balch, W. R. (2005). Elaborations of introductory psychology terms:
Effects on test performance and subjective ratings. Teaching of
Psychology, 32, 29–34.
Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., & Holgate, B. (1991). Generating
makes words memorable, but so does effective reading. Memory &
Cognition, 19, 487–497. doi:10.3758/BF03199571
Bellezza, F. S. (1996). Mnemonic methods to enhance storage and
retrieval. In E. L., Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp.
345–380). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the
training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.),
Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu
192
Bloom, C. M., & Lamkin, D. M. (2006). The Olympian struggle to
remember the cranial nerves: Mnemonics and student success.
Teaching of Psychology, 33, 128–129. Retrieved from http://
teachpsych.org/top/index.php
Carlson, L., Zimmer, J., & Glover, J. (1981). First-letter mnemonics:
Dam (Don’t Aid Memory). The Journal of General Psychology,
104, 287–292. Retrieved from PsycINFO.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Coming to terms with the key-
word method in introductory psychology: A neuromnemonic
example. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 132–134. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top2502_15
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2008). Conquering mnemonophobia,
with help from three practical measures of memory and applica-
tion. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 176–183. doi:10.1080/
00986280802186151
Carney, R. N., Levin, J. R., & Levin, M. E. (1994). Enhancing the psy-
chology of memory by enhancing memory of psychology. Teaching
of Psychology, 21, 171–174. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2103_12
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework
for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the moti-
vated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 40, 117–128. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
Fleming, V. M. (2002). Improving students’ exam performance by
introducing study strategies and goal setting. Teaching of Psychol-
ogy, 29, 115–119. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_07
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2009). Metacogni-
tive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval
when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. doi:10.
1080/09658210802647009
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-
regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.
doi:10.3758/BF03194055
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories:
Is spacing the ‘‘enemy of induction’’? Psychological Science, 19,
585–592. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-
testing. Memory, 17, 493–501. doi:10.1080/09658210902832915
Lakin, J. L., Giesler, R. B., Morris, K. A., & Vosmik, J. R. (2007).
HOMER as an acronym for the scientific method. Teaching of
Psychology, 34, 94–96. Retrieved from PsycINFO
McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in
undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462–476. doi:10.3758/
s13421-010-0035-2
McCabe, J. A. (in preparation). Learning the brain in Introductory
Psychology: Examining the generation effect for mnemonics and
examples. Manuscript in preparation.
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at Society for the Teaching of Psychology on June 20, 2013
View publication stats
Teaching of Psychology 40(3)
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J.
(1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learn-
ing Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi-
gan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993).
Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801–813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024
Pressley, M., & Mullally, J. (1984). Alternative research paradigms in
the analysis of mnemonics. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 9, 48–60. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(84)90007-9
Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning:
Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological
Science, 17, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and
the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 677–688. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677
Saber, J. L., & Johnson, R. D. (2008). Don’t throw out the baby with
the bathwater: Verbal repetition, mnemonics, and active learning.
Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 207–216. doi:10.1177/
0273475308324630
Shimamura, A. P. (1984). A guide for teaching mnemonic skills.
Teaching of Psychology, 11, 162–166. Retrieved from PsycINFO
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation
of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
Soler, M. J., & Ruiz, J. C. (1996). The spontaneous use of memory
aids at different educational levels. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
10, 41–51. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199602)10:1<41:: AID-
ACP361>3.0.CO;2-1
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacog-
nition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 10, 117–139. doi:10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905
Stalder, D. R. (2005). Learning and motivational benefits of acronym
use in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 32,
222–228. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3204_3
Stalder, D. R., & Olson (2011). T for two: Using mnemonics to teach
statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 247–250. Retrieved from
PsycINFO
Susser, J. A., & McCabe, J. (2013). From the lab to the dorm room:
Metacognitive awareness and use of spaced study. Instructional
Science, 41(2), 345–363. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9231-8
Tuckman, B. W. (2003). The effect of learning and motivation
strategies training on college students’ achievement. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 44, 430–437. doi:10.1353/csd.20030034
VanVoorhis, C. R. W. (2002). Stat jingles: To sing or not to sing.
Teaching of Psychology, 29, 249–250. Retrieved from PsycINFO