James W. Hall’s research while affiliated with Northwestern University and other places

Examined the use of the keyword mnemonic for vocabulary learning by university students given extensive keyword training. Keywords were identified by the learners rather than supplied by the experimenter. In Exp 1, Ss studied and recalled English equivalents of German nouns before and after mnemonic training under different presentation conditions. Before training, learning was 60% better with 4 list presentations at a 2.5-s rate (4 × 2.5) than with 1 presentation at a 10-s rate (1 × 10). Learning was better after training, especially in the 1 × 10 condition; Ss reported difficulty using the keyword mnemonic in the 4 × 2.5 condition despite higher learning scores in that condition after training. In Exp 2, Ss learned brief definitions of unusual words with self-paced presentation. The keyword Ss scored significantly more poorly than controls on items not selected for keyword suitability, and additional data indicated that it was difficult to generate keywords for many of those items and that an alternative mediational strategy was preferred. A 3rd experiment showed no learning difference between the keyword-generated version of the keyword method used in Exps 1 and 2 and a keyword-supplied condition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

We suggest that item differences between experiments may account for observed differences in the effectiveness of the keyword mnemonic. Specifically, the keyword mnemonic may be executed more readily (and rapidly) with items that contain obvious keywords than with a broader cross-section of items. We also point out several instances in which positions were incorrectly attributed to us (Hall & Fuson, 1986) in Pressley's (1987) article.

We suggest that item differences between experiments may account for observed differences in the effectiveness of the keyword mnemonic. Specifically, the keyword mnemonic may be executed more readily (and rapidly) with items that contain obvious keywords than with a broader cross-section of items. We also point out several instances in which positions were incorrectly attributed to us (Hall & Fuson, 1986) in Pressley's (1987) article.

Ten experiments examined the effects on children's performance of using collection (e.g., “army”) versus class (e.g., “soldiers”) terms to describe sets of familiar objects. In seven experiments using number tasks (conservation of number and two other equivalence tasks) the facilitative effect of collection terms reported by Markman (1979) was not found. However, in experiments with a class-inclusion task, performance was better with collection than with class terms, replicating the original labeling effect reported by Markman (1973) and Markman and Seibert (1976). Additional data supported the interpretation that collection terms facilitate class-inclusion performance because they help the child represent the class-inclusion situation as a combine object situation in which two sets are put together to form a combined aggregate set. Formation of a mental combined set is not required by the number tasks, where both sets are always available in their entirety.

Argues that for simple vocabulary items, the amount that Ss can learn during a given period of study is markedly underestimated when unusually slow (8-sec or slower) presentation rates are imposed. That disadvantage apparently is less when Ss use the keyword mnemonic. Most researchers who have shown the keyword method to be superior to a nonmnemonic control condition may have overestimated the extent of keyword superiority under typical conditions, in which Ss have not been constrained by slow presentation rates. The use of self-pacing or of multiple-rate conditions in such experiments is suggested. (9 ref)

Argues that for simple vocabulary items, the amount that Ss can learn during a given period of study is markedly underestimated when unusually slow (8-sec or slower) presentation rates are imposed. That disadvantage apparently is less when Ss use the keyword mnemonic. Most researchers who have shown the keyword method to be superior to a nonmnemonic control condition may have overestimated the extent of keyword superiority under typical conditions, in which Ss have not been constrained by slow presentation rates. The use of self-pacing or of multiple-rate conditions in such experiments is suggested. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Young children must learn to count objects accurately, and they must learn that the last word said in counting a set of objects tells how many objects there are in that set (the cardinality rule). In 3 experiments with preschoolers no difference across sets ranging from 2 to 19 objects was found in giving the last counted word as the answer to the question "How many objects are there?" The relationship between children's response of the last counted word to a howmany question and counting accurately varied with set size. For very small sets (2, 3, 4), significantly more children counted accurately and did not give last-word responses than vice versa. For sets from 4 to 7 objects, approximately equal numbers of children demonstrated only 1 of these abilities and not the other. For sets from 9 to 19, significantly more children gave last-word responses and did not count accurately than vice versa. Children did not exhibit difficulty in coordinating last-word responding and counting accurately.

On two widely separated occasions (referred to as Experiments 1 and 2), children in grades 2 and 3 were given three study-recall trials on a list of familiar words, with a retention test 24 hr. later. Percentage retained, a measure that was independent of original learning scores, showed significant stability over the two occasions, indicating the existence of individual differences in rates of forgetting. Further evidence of such differences accrued from group differences found within each experiment; children judged by teachers to forget unusually rapidly did display more rapid forgetting than did unselected children. However, children labeled "learning disabled" by the schools failed to display unusually rapid forgetting, despite common proposals to the contrary. An encoding deficit hypothesis was proposed to account for unusually rapid forgetting, and issues regarding the measurement of individual differences in forgetting were addressed.

Experiments 1–4 examined immediate serial recall of rhyming and nonrhyming items by normal and poor readers in Grades 2–4. Children with generally low achievement were excluded from the poor-reader groups, so that the achievement deficit of the poor readers was centered in reading. The poor readers did not differ from the normal readers in their susceptibility to phonemic similarity either with letter lists or with word lists. Children low in both achievement and intelligence were included in Experiment 3, and they also showed normal susceptibility to phonemic similarity, except that phonemic-confusion effects were reduced when task-difficulty levels were high. Experiment 5 further demonstrated that the serial-recall task is relatively insensitive to phonemic-similarity effects when difficulty levels are high. Previous results suggesting that poor readers are relatively insensitive to phonemic similarity in such tasks may have been an artifactual consequence of marked differences in overall task difficulty for the groups compared. Implications of variations in sample-selection procedures also are discussed.

The accuracy of children's judgments of relative situational frequency was examined in two experiments. In Experiment 1 children with normal achievement in Grades 2 and 3 were compared with such children in Grades K and 5, as well as with three groups of low-achieving children in Grades 2 and 3. These latter groups consisted of children low in reading achievement, those low in math achievement, and those identified as learning disabled. Frequency judgment accuracy increased from kindergarten to Grades 2 and 3. No other comparisons yielded significant differences. Experiment 2 confirmed both the above age difference and the absence of any frequency judgment deficiency on the part of the low-achieving groups.