Older news items (pre-2010) brought over from the old website
Aschermann, E., Dannenberg, U. & Schulz, A. 1998. Photographs as retrieval cues for children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 55-66.
Finding: Photographs, frequently used as cues to remembering in adults, also appear to be effective with children as young as three.
This study looked at the value of photographs as retrieval cues for young children. Fifty-seven children (3,6-7, and 8 years old) participated in a fishing game. Ten days later the children were questioned about the game. Those children who were shown relevant photos recalled more details than those who were simply verbally reminded of the game. Appropriate props also improved accuracy of recall.
Bjorklund, D.F., Miller, P.H., Coyle, T.R. & Slawinski, J.L. 1997. Instructing Children to Use Memory Strategies: Evidence of Utilization Deficiencies in Memory Training Studies. Developmental Review, 17, 411-441.
Finding: When teaching young children learning strategies, care should be taken to keep it simple. Simply providing instructions is preferable than providing both instructions and a rationale.
The term "utilization deficiencies" refers to the use of an effective strategy without any improvement in performance. Thus, if a child dutifully rehearsed items without being able to remember them any better than items she had not rehearsed, this would be a deficiency in utilization.
Utilization deficiencies appear to be common among children. They are more common, unsurprisingly, with younger children, and more common when strategy training has included multiple procedures rather than a single procedure.
Manion, V. & Alexander, J.M. 1997. The Benefits of Peer Collaboration on Strategy Use, Metacognitive Causal Attribution, and Recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 268-289.
Finding: Working in groups with children who understand and use memory strategies can help children with poorer metacognitive skills increase their understanding and strategy use.
Metacognition - knowledge and understanding of your own cognitive processes - is increasingly being recognized as important in determining whether or not you can use cognitive strategies effectively. This study looked at the benefits of children with different levels of metacognitive understanding working together.
Children were tested as to their knowledge about the effectiveness of a sorting strategy, and then placed in small groups. These groups were given instructions to explicitly discuss their strategies. It was found that children with a lower metacognitive understanding improved their understanding and strategy use as a result of being placed with children with a higher level of understanding.
Harnishfeger, K.K. & Pope, R.S. 1996. Intending to Forget: The Development of Cognitive Inhibition in Directed Forgetting. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 292-315.
Finding: Intentional forgetting is a learned skill, which children acquire gradually, and which is not fully acquired by age 10.
Although we tend to decry forgetting, and regard it as a failure of memory, forgetting is an important ability. Not everything is worth remembering. Certainly we don't want to remember everything all at once!
Part of efficient remembering involves ignoring information that is irrelevant. It is thought that "directed ignoring" plays an important role in controlling what goes into working memory. Interestingly, it has been suggested that one of the reasons for memory problems in old age is a diminished ability to ignore irrelevant information.
This research looks at directed ignoring in children. First, third, and fifth graders and adults were given a "forget" or "remember" cue midway through the presentation of a list of words. At recall, the subjects were asked either to remember all the words (even the ones they had been instructed to forget) or to remember only to-be-remembered words.
It was found that the children were less able than the adults to forget the to-be-forgotten words. The results suggested that the ability to intentionally inhibit recall of irrelevant information improves gradually over the elementary school years, but is not fully mature by fifth grade. A further experiment checked that the different results were due to differences in memory rather than a failure to understand the instructions.
Oyen, A. & Bebko, J.M. 1996.The Effects of Computer Games and Lesson Contexts on Children's Mnemonic Strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 173-189.
Finding: Learning in the context of a computer game may be more difficult for young children than in the context of a more structured lesson. Interest is higher, but the complexity of the game (number of distracting details) may hinder learning.
This study looked at the effect of embedding a memory task in the context of a computer game. Four to seven year olds participated in one of two computer games and a more formal "lesson" condition. While the game context appeared to stimulate much more rehearsal, this was because the rehearsal was more overt. The amount of rehearsal when both overt and covert rehearsal were included, was similar for both the lesson and the game condition.
There was, as expected, an increase in rehearsal with age - at each age level the number of rehearsers nearly doubled. Rehearsers did, of course, recall more items than those children who did not rehearse.
Regardless of rehearsal, recall of items experienced in the game context was less than that for items experienced in a more formal "lesson". The games were more interesting for the children, but the multiplicity of goals and distractions in the games may have made the task more difficult.
Event memory in young children
Reese, E. & Brown N. 2000. Reminiscing and recounting in the preschool years. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 1-17.
Finding: Parents can help their child remember events that have happened to them by reminiscing with them (recalling with them events that they have shared) and encouraging them to recall details about unshared events.
Talk about past events can be classified as either reminiscing (discussingshared experiences) or recounting (discussing unshared experiences).
This study looked at reminiscing and recounting between preschoolers and their mothers. Forty children between three and five participated in the experiment. It was found that children reported more unique memory information when they were discussing unshared experiences (recounting) rather than shared. Mothers who provided morememory information during reminiscing and asked for more information during recounting had children who reported more unique information about events.
Buckner, J.P. & Fivush, R. 1998. Gender and self in children's autobiographical narratives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 407-29.
Finding: Gender differences in conversational style seem to appear at an early age. At age 8, girls' recounting of personal experiences are already more detailed and socially contexted than boys' narratives are.
This study looked at the differences between girls and boys in recounting personal experiences. The children were aged eight, and from a middle-class background. As has tended to be found with adults, it was found that the girls' narratives were longer, more coherent and more detailed than were the boys' narratives. The girls' narratives also tended to mention more people and more emotions, and to be placed in a social context.
Maintenance rehearsal in children
Maintenance rehearsal refers to the simple repetition of items to hold them in working memory, where we are conscious of them. Thus, when we want to remember a phone number for long enough to ring it, or write it down, we repeat it to ourselves until we have completed our action.
Maintenance rehearsal no doubt seems a self-evident strategy to any adult, simple as it is and long accustomed as we are to using it. However, it is, like any strategy, something we have to learn to do. It is rare in five year olds, common in ten year olds (although still not universal).
Rehearsal is an effective strategy for short-term recall, and young children (at least as old as six) can be taught to use the strategy. However, continued use of the strategy (without explicit instruction) is more unlikely than not. It may be however, that training was insufficient to impress upon the children the usefulness of the strategy, and with better feedback they might be encouraged to use the strategy spontaneously.
Flavell JH, Beach DR & Chinsky JM 1966. Spontaneous verbal rehearsal in a memory task as a function of age. Child Development, 37, 283-99.
Finding: Spontaneous rehearsal found among 10% of 5 year olds; 60% of 7 year olds, 85% of 10 year olds.
Keeney TJ, Cannizo SR & Flavell JH 1967. Spontaneous and induced verbal rehearsal in a recall task. Child Development, 38, 953-66.
Finding: 6 & 7 year olds who rehearsed spontaneously (without instruction) were significantly better at recalling a list of items than that of non-rehearsers. Training of non-rehearsers resulted in improvement almost to the level of the spontaneous rehearsers; however on later trials (given the option to rehearse) 10 of 17 newly taught rehearsers abandoned the strategy.
Categorizing
Categorizing is another very basic strategy that many of us use to help us remember items. Thus, if you are given a list:
BANANA VAN PANSY TRUCK CARNATION PLUM PEACH MOTORCYCLE ROSE MARIGOLD MANGO CAR
the items will be much easier to remember if you note that the items belong to only three categories — fruit, vehicles, flowers. Noting that there are four examples of each will also help. The category labels help considerably when it comes to retrieving the information (and knowing how many items in each category tells us when we can stop searching that category and move on to another).
Most educated adults do this sort of thing automatically. But, again, like any strategy no matter how simple, it is not something we are born knowing.
Very young children are not likely to group items at all, but if they do, it will be most likely according to some sort of association (cornflakes — milk, baby — bottle, paper — pencil). If young children are taught to group items into taxonomic categories, they will still not use category labels effectively when retrieving the information, without explicit instruction.
From around 6 or 7, children seem to benefit more from instruction in categorization strategies. If the children are very young, such instruction may only confuse them. Using category labels as retrieval cues appears to be a more complex strategy than the first step of learning to group according to category, and doesn’t appear until later. Even children as old as 11 may benefit from explicit reminders to use category labels as retrieval cues and search the categories exhaustively before moving on.
At around 7, about 50% of children appreciate the value of categorization as a memory strategy. This doesn’t increase all that much over the next few years (about 60% of ten year olds), although nearly all 17 year olds understand the strategy.
Moely BE, Olson FA, Halwes T & Flavell J 1969. Production deficiency in young children’s clustered recall. Developmental Psychology, 1, 26-34.
Finding: Children were shown pictures of animals, furniture, vehicles and clothes, and told they could arrange the pictures in any way that would help them remember. 5th graders sorted them into these taxonomic categories. 3rd graders were able to arrange them that way once the experimenter labeled each category and pointed out members. Kindergarten and 1st graders needed a lot of help — to sort the items, label the categories, and count the number of pictures in each category.
Moely BE & Jeffrey WE 1974. The effects of organization training on children’s free recall of category items. Child Development, 45, 135-143.
Finding: most 6 and 7 year olds could sort successfully when given the suggestion that the items could be divided into “groups of things that are alike in some way or kind of go together”. Some children needed help to label the categories. When given the instruction, during recall, to think of a category label and name all the members in the category, then to repeat this with each category, recall was improved.
Zinobar JW Cermak LS Cermak SA & Dickerson DJ 1975. A developmental study of categorical organization in short-term memory. Developmental Psychology, 11, 398-9.
Finding: found 3rd and 4th graders spontaneously used taxonomic categories, but 2nd graders didn’t.
Bjorklund DF, Ornstein PA & Haig JR 1977. Developmental differences in organization and recall: Training in the use of organizational techniques. Developmental Psychology, 13, 175-83.
Finding: 3rd and 5th graders were much better at categorizing when given explicit instructions about what to look for.
Denney NW & Ziobrowski M 1972. Developmental changes in clustering criteria. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 275-83.
Finding: if 1st graders grouped items at all (spontaneously), they do it according to associations, e.g. pipe-tobacco, baby-crib.
Black MM & Rollins HA 1982. The effects of instructional variables on young children’s organization and free recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 1-19.
Finding: 1st graders taught to categorize pictures of common objects ( such as furniture, clothes, animals, food) using two different methods of instruction:
- explanatory
- questioning (using direct questioning to lead the child to consider ways to remember and to develop a verbal explanation of the strategy).
These methods were further differentiated according to how general or specific the instructions were. Thus:
- In the general explanation group, the experimenter explained why organization was helpful in recall while demonstrating with the picture cards (“If I put cards together that are similar, such as all the animals, it will be easier to remember”).
- In specific explanation, the instructions were directed towards specific items (“I will put the dog next to the cat”).
- In general question, the experimenter asked questions and encouraged the child to manipulate the cards. The question emphasized the purpose for an organizational strategy (“Why do we put the animals together?”). Correct answers were provided if the child couldn’t answer correctly.
- In specific question, the questions were directed to specific items.
In all cases, the training lasted 10 — 12.5 minutes. All types of training appeared to be effective in improving recall, and there was little difference between them. Explanation was slightly better than questioning, and general strategies were slightly better than the corresponding specific ones.
Kobasigawa A 1974. Utilization of retrieval cues by children in recall. Child Development, 45, 1067-72.
Finding: young children not only fail to categorize, even when they have been explicitly instructed to categorize they don’t use categories effectively during retrieval. Thus, when asked to remember the items, if they remember a category label, they tend to be satisfied as soon as they have retrieved one item from the category instead of searching the category exhaustively.
Scribner S & Cole M 1972. Effects of constrained recall training on children’s performance in a verbal memory task. Child Development, 43, 845-57.
Finding: when children were reminded at presentation and recall that there were four categories, and told to recall all items from a category before moving on, recall was better for all ages (7, 9 and 11 years).
Yussen SR, Kunen S & Buss R 1975. The distinction between perceiving and memorizing in the presence of category cues. Child Development, 46, 763-8.
Finding: interestingly, preschool children seemed to do better when they were not given such instructions, but simply asked to remember as much as they could.
Davies GM & Brown L 1978. Recall and organization in five year old children. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 343-9.
Davies G & Rushton A 1979. Presentation mode and organizational strategies in young children’s free recall. In MP Friedman, JP Das, & N O’Connor (eds) Intelligence and learning. NY: Plenum Pr.
Finding: some evidence that spontaneous categorization is less likely with pictures (the usual experimental stimulus); that young children are far more likely to categorize when faced with real objects.
Wimmer H & Tornquist K 1980. The role of metamemory and metamemory activation in the development of mnemonic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 71-81.
Finding: children questioned to find out to what extent they understood the value of categorizing in aiding remembering. They found 50% of 7 year olds, 60% of 10 year olds, and nearly all 17 year olds did.
The value of category labels in helping young children learn
Category labels don’t appear to particularly help recall in children before the age of ten.
Picture recognition is assisted by labeling in children as young as four.
Researchers have had mixed results in labeling pictures as an aid to learning paired associations in young children.
Labeling pictures does not appear to help very young children remember the order of items, but can be helpful to children from six years old until they are of an age to spontaneously label, when such explicit labeling may interfere with their own learning strategy. Such spontaneous labeling probably occurs around ten.
Labeling however is often part of a wider strategy, and may well be helpful to young children for other reasons than improving recall. For example, it may be useful in helping children acquire language.
Kobasigawa A & Middleton D. 1972. Free recall of categorized items by children at three grade levels. Child Development, 43, 1067-1072.
Moely BE 1977. Organizational factors in the development of memory. In R Kail & J Hagen (eds) Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: NJ: LEA.
Finding: categorization (labeling categories of items during presentation) improves recall in children in the 5th grade (10 year olds), but not younger.
Horowitz AB 1969. Effect of stimulus presentation modes on children’s recall and clustering. Psychonomic Science, 14, 297-8.
Finding: increased recall but no increased organization by 5 and 8 year olds who had to label auditory or visual items during presentation (vs children who simply looked at or listened to the items).
Williams KG & Goulet LR 1975. The effects of cuing and constraint instructions on children’s free recall performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 464-475.
Finding: telling children category names before presenting the items (prelabeling) didn’t help recall in 4 year olds.
Nelson K 1969. The organization of free recall by young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 284-295.
Finding: prelabeling didn’t help recall in 5 and 8 year olds.
Ward WC & Legant P 1971. Naming and memory in nursery school children in the absence of rehearsal. Developmental Psychology, 5, 174-5.
Finding: labeling pictures appeared to help picture recognition in 4 year olds
Nelson KE & Kosslyn SM 1976. Recognition of previously labeled or unlabeled pictures by 5-year-olds and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21, 40-45.
Finding: labeling pictures appeared to help picture recognition in 5 year olds and adults. Such labeling probably modifies attention to particular elements.
Rohwer WD, Lynch S, Levin JR & Suzuki N. 1967. Pictorial and verbal factors in the efficient learning of paired associates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 278-84.
Finding: labeling pictures aided paired-associate learning in kindergarten children, 1st, 3rd & 6th graders.
Rohwer WD, Kee D & Guy K. 1975. Developmental changes in the effects of presentation media on noun-pair learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 137-152.
Finding: labeling pictures didn’t help paired-associate learning in 2nd graders.
Means & Rohwer 1974 (unpublished study)
Finding: labeling pictures didn’t aid paired-associate learning in nursery school children,1st or 4th graders.
Hagen JW & Kingsley PR. 1968. Labelling effects in short-term memory. Child Development, 39, 113-121.
Finding: Overt labeling of animal pictures resulted in no improvement in recall of serial position in nursery children (around 5 years old); did improve serial recall in 6-8 year olds who didn’t spontaneously label; didn’t improve serial recall in 10 year olds who spontaneously labeled.
Ghatala ES & Levin JR. 1976. Children’s recognition memory processes. In JR Levin & VL Allen (eds) Cognitive learning in children: Theories and strategies. NY: Academic Pr
Finding: Overt labeling produced substantially better recall than covert labeling in elementary school children.