Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Applying cognitive science principles to improve retention of science vocabulary

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 April 2015

Abstract

We investigated whether three student-centred strategies influenced retention of science vocabulary words among 7th grade students. Two of the strategies (drawing pictures and talking about the definition of the terms) were developed to involve the students in more constructive and interactive exercises when compared to the technique that was in common use (copying definitions from the back of the textbook). Vocabulary from three science units was used in the study and reading level was considered as a potential moderator variable. Results showed some differences among the strategies when retention was measured but, more importantly, the effectiveness of the learning strategies varied with reading level and time of testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amsterlaw, J., & Wellman, H. (2006). Theories of mind in transition: A microgenetic study of the development of false belief understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 139–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts, J. R. (2009). The San Diego blueprint for student success: A retrospective overview and commentary. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognition Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaWancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (1987). Modality and long-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N., Saults, J. S., Elliott, E. M., & Moreno, M. (2002). Deconfounding serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 153–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban Education, 42, 512–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, R. G. (1972). Visual and auditory memory. In J. F. Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye: The relations between speech and learning to read (pp. 251–275). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 64–111. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenn, K. M., Gallo, D. A., Margoliash, D., Roediger, H. L. I., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2009). Reduced false memory after sleep. Learning & Memory, 16, 509–513. doi:10.1101/lm.1500808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foos, P. W., & Goolkasian, P. (2005). Presentation format effects in working memory: The role of attention. Memory & Cognition, 33, 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gais, S., Molle, M., Helms, K., & Born, J. (2002). Learning-dependent increases in sleep spindle density. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 6830–6834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, J. M., Gardiner, M. M., & Gregg, V. H. (1983). The auditory recency advantage in longer term free recall is not enhanced by recalling prerecency items first. Memory & Cognition, 11, 616–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gathercole, S. E., & Conway, M. A. (1988). Exploring long-term modality effects: Vocalization leads to best retention. Memory & Cognition, 16, 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolkasian, P., & Foos, P. W. (2002). Presentation format and its effect on working memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1096–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolkasian, P., & Park, D. C. (1980). Processing of visually-presented clock times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 707–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L. (1985). Constraints on the long-term modality effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 526–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L., & Crowder, R. G. (1986). Recency effects in delayed recall of mouthed stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 14, 355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L., Elliott, C. L., & Smith, M. D. (1988). When do interleave suffixes improve recall? Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 560–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, G. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 231–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J., & Zaromb, F. (2010). Retrieval mode distinguishes the testing effect from the generation effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, J. F., & Corrigan, A. (1981). Strategies in sentence-picture verification: The effect of an unexpected picture. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 515–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 671–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of dual coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, D. M., & Dosher, B. A. (2002). A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: A process dissociation analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 423–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 225–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). International trends in science performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and engineering indicators: 2010. NSB 10-01. Arlington, VA.

  • Nelson, D. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 45–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world: Vol. 1. Analysis. Paris: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Memory & Cognition, 3, 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1978). A dual coding approach to perception and cognition. In H. L. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 39–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Rosinski, R. R., Chiesi, H. L., & Siegel, A. (1977). Picture-word differences in decision latency: An analysis of single and dual memory models. Memory & Cognition, 5, 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Kmicikewycz, A. O. (2008). When generating answers benefits arithmetic skill: The importance of prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101, 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 382–395. doi:10.1037/a0026252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanations. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C., & Magee, L. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture-word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, C.-S., & Pu, X. (2012). The effectiveness of test-enhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Advance online publication. 9 July 2012. doi:10.1037/a0029190

  • Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wippich, W., Melzer, A., & Mecklenbrauker, S. (1998). Picture or word superiority effects in implicit memory: Levels of processing, attention, and retrieval constraints. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by funding from a Faculty Research Grant through UNC-Charlotte.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Leadership, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA

    Rebecca Shore

  2. Department of Psychology, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA

    Jenna Ray & Paula Gooklasian

  3. Cognitive Science Academy, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA

    Paula Gooklasian

Authors
  1. Rebecca Shore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenna Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paula Gooklasian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Shore.

Appendix

Appendix

Unit 1 immune system

Unit 2 genetics

Unit 3 speed measures

Antibody

Allele

Acceleration

Antigen

Dominant

Motion

Antibiotic

Gene

Position

Immune system

Genotype

Reference point

Immunity

Heredity

Speed

Pathogen

Percentage

Vector

Vaccine

Phenotype

Velocity

 

Probability

 
 

Punnett square

 
 

Ratio

 
 

Recessive

 
 

Sexual reproduction

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shore, R., Ray, J. & Gooklasian, P. Applying cognitive science principles to improve retention of science vocabulary. Learning Environ Res 18, 233–248 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9178-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9178-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation