14 Problem solving using

the keyword method and

mental imagery during
vocabulary recall
Mirella Wyra

Introduction
Vocabulary learning is essential for learners of languages. Mastering a large
vocabulary needed for effective communication in another language, how-
ever, can be a tedious, time-consuming, and often frustrating experience.
Vocabulary learning strategies have been indicated in the extant language
learning literature as useful aids in foreign language (FL) vocabulary mastery.
The focus of this chapter is the keyword method (KWM), one of the most
studied vocabulary learning strategies. The particular interest in this strategy
lies not in its effectiveness at the time of recall as a learning outcome, but in
its use in recall as a learning process using the lens of problem solving. This is
a novel approach to discussing vocabulary encoding for recall and is proposed
here to promote in the application of the KWM.

Vocabulary learning importance

in foreign language mastery
Remembering new words and their meanings is one of the challenges in mas-
tering another language. This can be especially daunting with the realisation
that 8,000–9,000 word families are needed for reading, and 5,000–7,000 word
families are needed for oral discourse (Schmitt, 2008). Moreover, beginner
language learners need to learn an average of 5,000 lexical items (Laufer, 1997)
or at least 2,000–3,000 most frequently used words (Nation, 2001). In addition,
FL learners need to learn several word knowledge aspects about each lexical
item (Schmitt, 2008).
Despite language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of vocabulary acquisi-
tion as a priority in FL learning and teaching (Knight, 1994; Macaro, 2003),
teaching learners how to learn vocabulary does not have a prominent place
(if any) in FL classrooms. This is because it has been usually assumed that
learners are able to “formulate and carry out a successful plan of self-study
on their own outside of the classroom” (Young-Davy 2014, p. 26). Experts
in vocabulary learning (e.g. Nation, 2013; Schmitt, 2012) have advised that
explicit attention must be paid to the teaching of vocabulary learning in
 The keyword method in problem solving 193
classrooms. They, and others (e.g. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Macaro, 2006;
Oxford, 2017), have also provided extensive guidance for accomplishing
vocabulary learning, which unfortunately does not seem to reach language
classrooms. As a result, learners are often unsure of the best ways to achieve
a goal of mastery of thousands of FL-L1 word pairs. In this context, “FL-L1
word pair” refers to a target language (FL or L2) word and its meaning pre-
sented in a learner’s first language (L1). Moreover, curriculum and teach-
ing materials have also failed to provide sufficient guidance, in which case
“teachers and learners have often been unsure of the best way to pursue it
[vocabulary learning]” (Schmitt, 2008, p. 329).
In a typical languages education context there is not enough time to explic-
itly teach vocabulary during class time (e.g. in Australia 1–2 lessons a week)
and the time available for lessons can be better utilised for practising FL skills
that rely on vocabulary knowledge (e.g. speaking). Such learner responsi-
bility is especially needed in flipped classroom approaches (e.g. in China),
content and language integrated learning (e.g. in Europe), and content-based
instruction (e.g. in the United States of America and Asia). An effective way
of helping learners to master large vocabularies is to teach them how to use
vocabulary learning strategies independently (Cohen & Macaro, 2007).
When learners are left to master new vocabulary independently, a majority
rely on their “own method”, which usually is simple repetition (Lawson &
Hogben, 1996; Schmitt, 1997). Evidence from investigations spanning the last
four decades shows that “good” (Rubin, 1975) or “successful” (Griffith, 2010)
FL language learners report using effective learning strategies. Subsequently,
language learning strategies, including vocabulary learning strategies, have
been of interest to researchers for many decades (e.g. Atkinson 1975; Cohen
& Macaro, 2007; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Pavičic ́ Takač, 2008; Zhang
& Lu, 2015). Notwithstanding the evidence and advice from research on
the benefit of vocabulary learning strategies, it is still of major concern that
students often have a very limited strategy bank (e.g. Cohen, 1998; Lawson
& Hogben, 1996). This is particularly the case in the context of FL learning
where learners’ exposure to the target language may be limited. In addition
to having a limited learning strategy bank, it is a notable concern that learners
do not use more effective strategies (Cohen, 1998; Green & Oxford, 1995).

The keyword method

The KWM (Atkinson, 1975), also called the “linkword method” (Gruneberg
& Jacobs, 1991), is a mnemonic strategy that has been studied extensively
and proven to be effective in FL learning. The KWM is an elaboration strat-
egy that requires a two-step procedure for vocabulary learning (Atkinson,
1975; Atkinson & Raugh, 1975; Beaton, Gruneberg, Hyde, Shufflebottom,
& Sykes, 2005; Lawson & Hogben, 1998; Wyra, Lawson, & Hungi, 2007).
To learn a new FL word and its meaning, the learner first makes an associa-
tion between the new target word and a familiar word in that learner’s first
194 Mirella Wyra
language (L1) (step 1). The L1 keyword needs to have an orthographic or
acoustic similarity to the FL target word. The second step relies on mental
visual imagery in which the learner generates a mental image of the keyword
interacting with the L1 meaning of the target FL word.
Atkinson (1975) illustrated how a Spanish-English word pair (pato = duck)
can be learned by using an English word “pot” as the keyword (memory-
facilitating mediator word). Learners initially think of an acoustically similar
English word (pot) that sounds like the FL word (pato) and link an image of
a pot with the English translation of the FL word (duck); for example, “a duck
with a pot on its head” (p. 822) or “a duck sitting inside of a pot” (Kasper &
Glass, 1988, p. 140). Similarly, the Spanish-English word pair (vaca = cow) can
be learned by using the English word “vacuum cleaner” as a keyword with
an orthographic similarity to vaca. The images of cow and “vacuum cleaner”
are linked in an interactive mental image of “a cow with a vacuum cleaner
cleaning a field” (Gruneberg, 1999, p. 529).

Effectiveness of the keyword method

The positive effects of the KWM have been substantiated in the disciplines of
cognitive psychology (e.g. Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011) and education
(e.g. Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2004). Research over 40 years has found the
KWM to be one of the most effective strategies for vocabulary acquisition.
It enables the learning, in a short period of time, of a large number of words
that are retained over an extended period. For example, Beaton, Gruneberg,
and Ellis (1995) reported a unique, single case of a high recall score after
10 years without further rehearsal in the interim.
The KWM is useful for vocabulary learning in many languages by learn-
ers of all ages. It has been shown to be superior to other vocabulary learning
strategies, and found to be useful in teaching Russian (Raugh, Schupbach,
& Atkinson, 1977), Spanish (Wyra et al., 2007), Italian (Beaton, Gruneberg,
& Ellis, 1995), German (Moore & Surber, 1992), French (Desrochers, 1982),
English as a second language (Rodríguez & Sadoski, 2000), and Japanese
(Taguchi, 2006). Studies also confirm the beneficial influence of the use of the
KWM for learners of all ages (3–88 years old); very young (Pressley, Levin,
& Miller, 1981), primary school learners (Wyra et al., 2007), undergraduates
(van Hell & Mahn, 1997), and the elderly (Gruneberg & Pascoe, 1996). The
KWM has also been found to be more effective for vocabulary learning than
other methods, such as repetition (e.g. Ellis & Beaton, 1993), learning from
context (e.g. four experiments in Levin, Levin, Glasman, & Nordwall, 1992),
sentence generation (e.g. Shaughnessy & Dinnell, 1999), systematic teaching
(King-Sears, Mercer, & Sindelar, 1992), and learners’ “own” method (e.g.
Lawson & Hogben 1998).
The KWM’s usefulness has been typically tested in one direction of recall
(receptive recall, also called “forward” recall), even though Atkinson (1975)
proposed that the KWM is effective for receptive and productive recall.
 The keyword method in problem solving 195
Receptive recall occurs when a learner who is presented with an FL target
word is expected to provide its meaning, that is, the direction of recall is from
FL word to first language (L1) equivalent (FL→L1) in reading and listening.
Productive recall, also called “backward” recall, occurs where a learner who
is presented with a word meaning in her/his first language is expected to
provide its foreign word equivalent, that is, the direction of recall is from L1
word to its FL equivalent (L1→FL) in writing and speaking. Only a few stud-
ies, however, have engaged learners of vocabulary with the use of the KWM
in productive recall. Some studies have found KWM for productive recall to
be ineffective (e.g. Sagarra & Alba, 2006; Hall, Wilson, & Patterson, 1981),
while others have found it to be effective (e.g. Beaton et al., 2005; Campos,
Rodríguez-Pinal, & Pérez-Fabello, 2014; Gruneberg & Pascoe, 1996; Wyra
et al., 2007). The KWM’s effectiveness can be attributed to the processes
underlying what a learner needs to do when using it, namely, make associa-
tions (Reber, 1995) and elaboration through visual imagery (Kosslyn, 1994;
Paivio, 1971) and cognitive effort (Craik, 2002; Craik & Lockhart, 1972;
Craik & Tulving, 1975; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1979).
Lawson and Hogben (1998), Wyra and Lawson (2018), and Wyra et al.
(2007) advocate including three encoding conditions into KWM instruction
to make the KWM more effective and to give learners an advantage at the
time of encoding and recall. The first condition is to limit the images in
the interactive picture to just two, namely, the image of the target word mean-
ing and the image of the keyword. This imposes limits on learners’ imag-
ination to prevent cognitive overload, which may hinder encoding and/or
retrieval (Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011). Limiting the number of features
in the interactive picture may, according to findings related to the fan effect
(Anderson, 2010), increase the likelihood that the meaning of the new FL
word will be retrieved. The fan effect refers to spreading activation in infor-
mation processing and the interference among competing associations to a
concept. The second condition is to make the meaning the most prominent
feature in the interactive image. This condition directs learners to differenti-
ate the size of the elements in their interactive picture to draw attention to the
meaning, and to help with identification and selection of the relevant image
at the time of retrieval. The third condition is that the picture created should
engage images of the keyword and of the L1 meaning in a funny, bizarre, or
unusual interaction because such images are more likely to be remembered for
a long time (Baddeley & Andrade, 2000; Campos, Amor, & González, 2002;
Clark & Paivio, 1991; Higbee, 1993; Worthen & Deschamps, 2008).

Encoding: The keyword method and decisions

for effective problem solving
The goal of FL vocabulary learning is to have the target FL word and its
meaning available for recall from memory. At times, however, the meaning
and, more frequently, the target FL word are not accessible for immediate or
196 Mirella Wyra
delayed recall after learning. This problem can be solved when vocabulary is
learned using the KWM.
Learning is a particular case of problem solving, influenced by cognitive (skill),
metacognitive (metaskill), and motivational (will) aspects (Mayer, 1998), which
need to be incorporated into instruction when using the KWM. Teaching
learners how to learn new words and their meanings with the aid of the KWM
is proposed here to require those three problem-solving aspects identified by
Mayer (1998). Learners using the KWM seem to be motivated to use this
method, initially because of its perceived simplicity (two simple encoding
steps) and enjoyment from engaging in the generation of funny or bizarre
images. Learners’ motivation is also enhanced by later experiences of the
method’s effectiveness in their own learning performance. Learners are also
required to know the KWM steps required to learn vocabulary (skill) and,
what is of special interest in the present chapter, they need to have metacog-
nitive skills.
Using the KWM with an explicit focus on informed decision making at
the time of encoding equips learners to deal with problem-solving difficul-
ties they may encounter in each direction of recall (receptive or productive).
This proposition is in line with advice from Delaney, Ericsson, and Knowles
(2004) that “Planning ahead involves anticipating consequences of actions
and results in memory representations that can range from complete step-by-
step plans to strategic guides for future action” (p. 1219). This is important for
successful problem solving in vocabulary learning and planning ahead at the
time of vocabulary encoding. It is also useful in anticipation of encountering
problems with recall.
When learning new vocabulary with the KWM, the learner needs to
understand the two KWM steps explained earlier (skill). In the two-step
process, learners must generate and transform an image to represent the inter-
action between the keyword and its meaning. The learner must also maintain
that mental image so it can be inspected at the time of retrieval to enable
identification of the meaning of the new FL word. Wyra and Lawson (2018)
argued that explicit KWM strategy and metastrategy knowledge is essential
for learners so they can experience the KWM’s full benefits. Learners’ skills
to generate, transform, maintain, and inspect images are equally essential
to effective use of the KWM. Learners also need metaskills to monitor and
evaluate their decisions during these four mental imagery processes to use
“stored information to reconstruct the appearance of, reinterpret, and pos-
sibly anticipate the consequences of transforming an object” (Kosslyn, Van
Kleeck, & Kirby, 1990, p. 42). The following section examines the processes
used to encode new vocabulary using the KWM on FL-L1 word pair exam-
ple ねこ = cat.
To learn that cat in Japanese is ねこ [read: “neko”], a learner may select
the English word “neck” as a useful keyword because of its acoustic simi-
larity to “neko.” This is the first step of the two-step keyword procedure
(Figure 14.1).
 The keyword method in problem solving 197

Figure 14.1 Target word “neko,” its meaning, and its keyword.

If the interaction between the target word and the keyword is generated
using the standard KWM instruction, like “Develop an interactive image or
picture of the keyword doing something with the to-be-remembered infor-
mation”; for example, “frog sitting in the rain, sick soldiers in the trenches”
(Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Marshak, 2010, p. 80), the image of the
interaction between cat and “neck” may be of a cat snuggling against the
owner’s neck (Figure 14.2).
This image may be of a real cat the learner knows or owns, or has seen
in real life or on TV, or it may be of a drawing of a cat (e.g. real-like or
cartoon-like) or created by the learner (e.g. green cat with pink spots). The
decision the learner makes at this point of encoding plays an important role
in assisting the recall of either the target word (“neko”) or the meaning (cat).
Using the three conditions imposed on encoding decisions in the Lawson
and Hogben (1998), Wyra et al. (2007), and Wyra and Lawson (2018) studies,

Figure 14.2 Image of a possible interaction between the words “neck” and “cat.”
198 Mirella Wyra

Figure 14.3 A cat with a very long neck.

the elaborated image of the association between the keyword “neck” and the
meaning of neko = cat may look something like that presented in Figure 14.3.
Mental images such as those presented in the preceding keyword imagery
example give learners an advantage at the time of encoding and at the time of
retrieval (Kosslyn et al., 1990). However, what is most important for learners
is to know how to use such mental images to maximise their chances for
correct vocabulary recall. In encoding-retrieval interactions, Craik (2002)
advised that:

Initial processing determines the qualitative nature of the encoded trace,

deeper encodings are associated with a greater potential for retrieval,
and this potential is realised by the provision of a retrieval environment
(which may include a specific retrieval cue), compatible qualitatively
with the trace information. (p. 309)

Receptive retrieval: The keyword method and decisions

for effective problem solving
If they are going to maximise the KWM’s effectiveness, learners need to be
aware of why encoding decisions made at the time of encoding are impor-
tant at the time of recall (in both directions of recall). Based on the reports
 The keyword method in problem solving 199
from the vast body of literature pertaining to the quality of students’ strategic
learning knowledge and actions, it is plausible to propose that learners may
consider there is only one path to the solution of word pair recall problems.
For example, in a direct path from neko to cat, or from cat to neko, students
may not have an opportunity to fully exploit their long-term memory for the
answer. As a result, they may be more likely to give up the recall challenge
prematurely if their first problem-solving attempt is not successful.
Typical KWM instruction in vocabulary learning research focusses attention
on encoding, giving very little attention to the retrieval process in both direc-
tions of recall. Generally, this attention has not reached beyond examining the
recall success in testing procedures. When it comes to the recall of encoded
word pairs, learners are often left with the task of working out how to retrieve
the information because the KWM instructions normally do not extend to
providing explicit guidance about how to use the method for recall. In past
research, some researchers and practitioners have used very general and mini-
mal instructions, such as “now use the method to remember the meaning of the
FL word” or “now use the method in reverse”. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2004),
who used the KWM for learning word pairs with students with learning disa-
bilities (e.g. social studies, Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Whedon, 1997), instructed
students in receptive recall: “Practise learning the retrieval steps. When asked
the meaning of the word, think of the keyword, think of what was happening
in the picture with the keyword in it, and retrieve the definition” (Scruggs
et al., 2010, p. 80). This type of instruction, although better than not providing
instruction at all, does not provoke metacognitive reflection on the purpose
and effectiveness of decisions made during encoding for the successful retrieval
in both directions of recall. Providing such brief instruction may not fully
draw on the value of the KWM for remembering word pairs. McInerney and
McInerney (2006) recommended that strategy instruction should be explicit,
intensive, and extensive.
It is important to note that how strategies are taught can be detrimental to
key elements of problem solving, namely the level of declarative, procedural,
and conditional strategy knowledge. Most of the KWM literature is focussed
on encoding, with retrieval addressed in terms of vocabulary recall outcomes
rather than as a process reflected in explicit instruction. In addition to explicit
instruction of encoding, Wyra and Lawson (2018) and Wyra et al. (2007) have
provided extensive and detailed instruction on bidirectional recall, report-
ing that such instruction gives students statistically and educationally signif-
icant gains in vocabulary recall. They found that the explicit bidirectional
recall instruction resulted in a 15.3 per cent increase in receptive recall and
a 16.6 per cent increase in productive recall. Their explicit retrieval instruc-
tions included the use of the three encoding conditions described earlier.
Wyra et al. (2007) proposed a bidirectional retrieval model, with retrieval
phases and broad processes involved in both directions of vocabulary recall.
The following sections discuss the use of this model and of instruction about
encoding conditions in solving recall problems.
200 Mirella Wyra

Figure 14.4 Target word “hilo,” its meaning, and its keyword.

When learning that the Spanish word hilo means thread or yarn (Figure 14.4)
in English, the learner may transform a mental image of a “hill”, combining it
with a mental image of yarn; for example, a hill wrapped in yarn (Figure 14.5).
Learners differ in their ability to form mental images (Marks, 1972; Wyra
et al, 2007); therefore, the way they imagine yarn or “hill” may differ.
Learners with high-imagery ability may constuct a highly realistic mental
representation of the yarn, including its colour and texture (see Figure 14.6,
part A), whereas learners with low-imagery ability may construct a mental
representation with little detail (see Figure 14.6, part B).
If a learner encounters difficulty with receptive recall, for example when
hilo is said or written, the learner can try to solve this problem by following the
five steps (steps 1F to 5F) outlined in the KWM bidirectional retrieval model
(Wyra et al., 2007). In the model, F refers to forward retrieval. Forward and
receptive are two terms used in the literature to describe the same direction
of recall (i.e. FL→ L1).
When presented with the Spanish word, hilo (yarn in English), the learner
scans this FL word to recall a keyword used in encoding (step 1F). After the
keyword “hill” is found, the learner searches for a pictorial representation of
the keyword (step 2F) followed by a search for a bizarre, funny, or unusual
picture with a hill in it (step 3F). The distinctive features of the mental image
assist the learner to eliminate a number of ordinary images of hills stored in
long-term memory by evaluating them as not useful for this solution. Next,
the learner focusses on the interactive two-image picture (“two pictures”
condition), selects the bigger image of the L1 meaning (yarn) (step 4F), and

Figure 14.5 Interactive picture of a hill wrapped up in yarn.

 The keyword method in problem solving 201

Figure 14.6 Q
 uality of mental representation of “yarn” as per criteria of individual differ-
ences in mental imagery used in Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire
(Marks, 1972) or Ability to Make Images Questionnaire (Wyra et al., 2007).

then selects this element of the interactive picture, giving it an L1 equivalent

(i.e. yarn, step 5F).
It is possible in step 5F that the learner may encounter difficulty interpret-
ing the recalled image. Taking the images presented in Figure 14.6, learners
may interpret yarn as “wool”, “string”, or “rope”. Using “rope” or “string”
in a conversation about knitting would be accepted as a “bad” synonym of
the word “yarn”, and would be understood as “yarn” in a context in which it
is known that the speaker is still learning the language. In other words, there
is acceptance in everyday casual conversation when it is understood that this
is a language learning context. Such considerations have implications for the
level of strictness in scoring recall outcomes.

Productive retrieval: The keyword method and decisions

for effective problem solving
Pressley, Levin, Hall, Miller, and Berry (1980) argued that “There is no
mechanism in the KWM to allow retrieval of the whole word from the key-
word. Thus, it is not surprising that the use of the method did not increase
whole foreign word recall” (p. 168). However, Wyra et al. (2007) identified
that KWM retrieval models for both receptive and productive retrieval paths
show that the same elements are used in reverse order for receptive and pro-
ductive recall. Wyra et al. also proposed that the cognitive and metacognitive
actions and the prior knowledge upon which a learner needs to draw vary
considerably between the receptive recall and the productive recall.
Wyra et al. (2007) identified five retrieval phases in productive recall; steps
1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, and 5B, where B refers to backward retrieval in their bidi-
rectional retrieval model. “Backward” and “productive” are two terms used
in the literature to describe the same direction of recall (i.e. L1→FL). When
presented with the L1 word “yarn,” the learner searches for a pictorial rep-
resentation of yarn (step 1B). Then, through a process of selection, the learner
focusses on a funny or bizarre image that includes yarn as the prominent
element (step 2B). Encoding a new FL word and its meaning with an unusual
and prominent mental representation makes this process easier. In the third
202 Mirella Wyra
step in productive retrieval (3B), the learner selects a less prominent image
as the image of the keyword and identifies the keyword (“hill”) in step 4B.
In step 5B, the learner needs to search for FL words that sound or look like
the keyword. This is a very challenging process. Pressley et al. (1980) posited
that “the method might inhibit subjects’ acquisition, in as much as only those
elements that are similar to the keywords are learned, and therefore complete
reconstruction of the foreign items is less likely” (pp. 163-164). This state-
ment captures the level of difficulty that step 5B presents for a learner, espe-
cially for a beginner FL learner with limited FL learning experience. This
step is problematic because the learner knows that this word sounds or looks
like the keyword, and in step 5B the learner needs to make a leap from the
keyword to the target FL word. If there are other competing words within
memory that look or sound like “hill”, the selection of the correct word may
be hindered; thus, the possibility of a learner not selecting the correct FL
word increases.
If the learner cannot retrieve an FL, in this example the Spanish equivalent
of “yarn,” then the recall will be unsuccessful. However, in explicit strategy
instruction, if a learner is advised that one of the reasons for not reaching a
correct response may be a misinterpretation of his/her mental image, the
learner can use other skills to solve this problem. The learner, as a problem
solver, needs to decide upon a particular operator when multiple operators
may be available. This deliberate approach promotes divergent skills. In the
case of the image in Figure 14.7, it is not unlikely that the learner interprets
this mental image as “mountain” and not “hill”.
Learners may not always interpret mental images they have generated
in exactly the same way; however, “mental images and perceived stimuli
are represented similarly and can be processed in the same way” (Borst &
Kosslyn, 2008, p. 849). Using “mountain” as a keyword would not lead to
the recall of hilo. Prompts to consider a synonym of “mountain” or alterna-
tive interpretations of the recalled image may lead to a correct recall. The

Figure 14.7 Hill/mountain images.

 The keyword method in problem solving 203
learning that occurs from such a recall experience may change the learner’s
future decisions about which image may be more useful in language learn-
ing, such as that presented in Figure 14.7. Learners may consider evaluating
such images for their usefulness and ease of recall.
Knowing all this – having declarative, procedural, and conditional KWM
knowledge – the learner can not only solve the vocabulary recall problem
by looking for alternatives (in this case a trial and error may be involved),
but can also gain metacognitive awareness of the usefulness (or otherwise)
of encoding decisions for successful recall. For example, in a study by Wyra
(2018), a student who learned that sótano in Spanish means “basement” was
struggling to recall the Spanish word for “basement” because he was recall-
ing an interactive image of a devil in a basement. Using his metacognitive
awareness, influenced by explicit KWM instruction, he then re-inspected the
elements of the recalled mental image. He reported being certain that this
recalled image was an accurate representation of the mental image he made at
the time of encoding, so then he considered using another word to describe
the image of the devil. Consequently, he arrived at its synonym “Satan”. This
keyword then led him to the correct response: Basement in Spanish is sótano.
Such metacognitive awareness is helpful during moment-to-moment prob-
lem solving. It can also guide learners during subsequent vocabulary learning
experiences where a learner can consider image selection to decrease any
ambiguity, if possible.

Concluding thoughts
This chapter proposes that the decisions a learner makes using the KWM at
each of the encoding and bidirectional retrieval phases can influence vocab-
ulary recall success. It advocates deliberately using problem solving during
the KWM vocabulary retrieval, especially when retrieval does not yield
an immediate recall success. This chapter proposes that it is important that
explicit strategy instruction includes deliberate, moment-to-moment, prob-
lem solving and scaffolded practice in the KWM vocabulary encoding and
bidirectional retrieval processes. It is also proposed that skill and metaskill are
complementary in the explicit KWM instruction given; they focus on the
importance of emphasising effective monitoring and metacognitive aware-
ness in strategy training. This is particularly important when considering
that there are multiple pathways to a successful word pair recall outcome.
Such instruction promotes critical thinking, creative thinking, decision
making, and problem solving (Mishan & Perkins, 1990). It also facilitates
gaining effective KWM strategy and metastrategy knowledge and skills
(Wyra & Lawson, 2018), as well as good quality knowledge representations
and actions (Lawson & Askell-Williams, 2012). Explicit instruction that
encourages reflection and metacognitive awareness gives students opportu-
nities to examine and understand their own thinking and learning processes
(Anderson, 2010; Pressley, 2000).
204 Mirella Wyra
Given the level of elaboration required at the time of encoding, the
metacognitive awareness needed for encoding decisions, and the role of the
moment-to-moment problem-solving potential at the time of vocabulary
recall, the discussion presented in this chapter offers other avenues for KWM
research and practice. It posits that the KWM has undiscovered/unexplored
potential to further enhance vocabulary learning. Although this chapter has
provided some explanation as to the role of problem solving in the KWM
vocabulary retrieval, more work is needed to further examine moment-
to-moment problem solving in that process, with a special focus on mental
imagery and encoding decisions for effective recall.
The discussion presented here provides further rationale for teachers of
languages to consider the best ways to engage in explicit teaching of vocab-
ulary strategies such as the KWM. Furthermore, given the research evidence
of the KWM’s effectiveness, it is clear that writers of the FL curriculum, text-
books, and other resources should seriously consider placing due emphasis on
explicit KWM strategy teaching.

References
Anderson, J. R. (2010). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American
Psychologist, 30(8), 821-828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077029
Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword
method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 1(2), 126-133. http://dx.doi:10.1037/0278-7393.1.2.126
Baddeley, A. D., & Andrade, J. (2000). Working memory and the vividness of
imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 126-145. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.126
Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M., & Ellis, N. (1995). Retention of foreign vocabulary learned
using the keyword method: A ten-year follow-up. Second Language Research, 11(2), 112-120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100203
Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M., Hyde, C., Shufflebottom, A., & Sykes, R. (2005). Facilitation
of receptive and productive foreign vocabulary learning using the keyword method:
The role of image quality. Memory, 13(5), 458-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09658210444000395
Borst, G., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Visual mental imagery and visual perception:
Structural equivalence revealed by scanning processes. Memory & Cognition, 36(4),
849-862. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.849
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2010). Cognitive psychology and instruction
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Campos, A., Amor, Á., & González, M. (2002). Presentation of keywords by means
of interactive drawings. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(2), 102-109. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1138741600005874
Campos, A., Rodríguez-Pinal, M., & Pérez-Fabello, M. (2014). Receptive and produc-
tive recall with the keyword mnemonics in bilingual students. A Journal for Diverse
Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 33(1), 64-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-013-9197-y
 The keyword method in problem solving 205
Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology
Review, 3(3), 149-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London, UK:
Longman.
Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Craik, F. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present … and future? Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000135
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11(6), 671-684. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in epi-
sodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.
Delaney, P. F., Ericsson, K. A., & Knowles, M. E. (2004). Immediate and sustained effects
of planning in a problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,
Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 1219-1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1219
Desrochers, A. (1982). Imagery elaboration and the recall of French article-noun pairs.
Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 36(4), 641-654. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0080671
Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language
vocabulary: Imagery keyword mediators and phonological short-term memory.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 46(3), 533-558. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14640749308401062
Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, M. (1979). Processing depth, elaboration of encoding, mem-
ory stores, and expended processing capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 5(5), 472-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.5.472
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,
and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625
Griffith, C. (2010). Strategies of successful language learners. JELS, 1(3), 1-18.
Gruneberg, M. M. (1999). A commentary on criticism of the keyword method of
learning foreign languages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(5), 529-532. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199810)12:5
Gruneberg, M. M., & Jacobs, G. C. (1991). In defence of Linkword. The Language Learning
Journal, 3(1), 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571739185200091
Gruneberg, M. M., & Pascoe, K. (1996). The effectiveness of the keyword method for
receptive and productive foreign vocabulary learning in the elderly. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21(1), 102-109. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0009
Hall, J. W., Wilson, K. P., & Patterson, R. J. (1981). Mnemotechnics: Some limita-
tions of the mnemonic keyword method for the study of foreign language vocab-
ulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 345-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0663.73.3.345
Higbee, K. L. (1993). Your memory: How it works and how to improve it. New York, NY:
Paragon House.
Kasper, L. F., & Glass, A. L. (1988). An extension of the keyword method facilitates the
acquisition of simple Spanish sentences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(2), 137-146.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350020205
King-Sears, M. E., Mercer, C. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (1992). Toward independence with
keyword mnemonics: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and
Special Education, 13(5), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259201300505
206 Mirella Wyra
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal,
78(3), 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02043.x
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Van Kleeck, M. H., & Kirby, K. N. (1990). A neurologically plausible
model of individual differences in visual mental imagery. In P. J. Hampson, D. F.
Marks, & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), International library of psychology. Imagery: Current
developments (pp. 39-77). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady &
T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20-34).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, M. J., & Askell-Williams, H. (2012). Framing the features of good quality
knowledge for teachers and students. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), Enhancing
the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139048224.010
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of
foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-1770.1996.tb00642.x.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1998). Learning and recall of foreign-language vocab-
ulary: Effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall. Learning and
Instruction, 8(2), 179-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00016-9.
Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic
vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 17(2), 156-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90056-5.
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language: A review of recent research. New
York, NY: Continuum Publishing Group.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising
the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320-337. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x
Marks, D. F. (1972). Individual differences in the vividness of visual imagery and their
effect on funtion. In P. W. Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Whedon, C. (1997). Using mnemonic strategies
to teach information about US presidents: A classroom-based investigation. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 20(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511089
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem
solving. Instructional Science, 26(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286
McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning
(4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Mishan, E. J., & Perkins, D. (1990). Teaching thinking. London, UK: Routledge.
Moore, J. C., & Surber, J. R. (1992). Effects of context and keyword methods on second
language vocabulary acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(3), 286-292.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90067-9
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 The keyword method in problem solving 207
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in
context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strat-
egies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pavičic ́ Takač, V. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of ? In
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Hall, J. W., Miller, G. E., & Berry, J. K. (1980). The key-
word method and foreign word acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 6(2), 163-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.163
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Miller, G. E. (1981). The keyword method and children’s
learning of foreign vocabulary with abstract meanings. Canadian Journal of Psychology/
Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 35(3), 283-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0081147
Raugh, M. R., Schupbach, R. D., & Atkinson, R. C. (1977). Teaching a large Russian
language vocabulary by the mnemonic keyword method. Instructional Science, 6(3),
199-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120656
Reber, A. S. (1995). The Penguin dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.
Rodríguez, M., & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/
keyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms. Language Learning,
50(2), 385-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00121
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),
41-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning
methods with beginning learners of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 228-243.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00394.x
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning.
Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921
Schmitt, N. (2012). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (Eds.) (2004). Research in secondary schools: Advances
in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 17). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S. L., & Marshak, L. (2010). Mnemonic
strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 46(2), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210374985
Shaughnessy, M., & Dinnell, D. (1999). Levels of elaboration, interference and memory
for vocabulary definitions. North American Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 293-306.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1). New York, NY:
Springer.
Taguchi, K. (2006). Should the keyword method be introduced in tertiary foreign lan-
guage classrooms? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(3), 22-38.
Young-Davy, B.(2014). Explicit vocabulary instruction. ORTESOL Journal, 31, 26-32.
208 Mirella Wyra
Van Hell, J. G., & Mahn, A. C. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal:
Learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learn-
ers. Language Learning, 47(3), 507-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00018
Worthen, J. B., & Deschamps, J. D. (2008). Humour mediates the facilitative effect of
bizarreness in delayed recall. British Journal of Psychology, 99(4), 461-471. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1348/000712608X298476
Wyra, M. (2018). Meta-strategy knowledge and vocabulary learning success: Examining
retrieval processes in the keyword method (in preparation).
Wyra, M., & Lawson, M. J. (2018). Foreign language vocabulary learning using the key-
word method: Strategy and meta-strategy knowledge. The Language Learning Journal,
1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1503138
Wyra, M., Lawson, M. J., & Hungi, N. (2007). The mnemonic keyword method: The
effects of bidirectional retrieval training and of ability to image on foreign language
vocabulary recall. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 360-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2007.02.008
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2015). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies
and breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4),
740-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12277