This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 05 January 2015, At: 01:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychologist
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy

Instruction
Joel R. Levin
Published online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Joel R. Levin (1986) Four Cognitive Principles of Learning-Strategy Instruction, Educational Psychologist,
21:1-2, 3-17, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.1986.9653021

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1986.9653021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 21(1& 2), 3-17
Copyright @ 1986, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Four Cognitive Principles of

Learning-Strategy Instruction
Joel R. Levin
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Four colgnitive principles of learning-strategy instruction are proposed. These

principles call for strategy researchers to: (a) develop learning strategies that are
appropriate to one's desired cognitive outcomes, (b) conduct routine compo-
nent analyses of both learning strategies and learner procmses, (c) take into ac-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

count the match between the particular learning strategy and the learner's spe-
cific knowledge and skills, and (d) perform controlled empirical validations of
learning-strategy effectiveness. A preliminary model that distinguishes among
the processes of understanding, remembering, and applying is presented to am-
plify the first cognitive principle.

Researchers who have puzzled over the problem of learning-strategy instruc-

tion recognize that two distinct sides of the problem exist. 011e side encom-
passes cognitive questions, such as: What learning strategies are effective,
and what strategy components and learner processes underlie a strategy's
effectivenes? The second side encompassesmetacognilive questions, such as:
What must a learner know in order to select and deploy a leaning strategy
wisely and independently? I think it apt to refer to these cognitive and
metacognitive aspects as the two "cogs" of learning-strategy instruction. Like
teeth on a wheel, these two cogs allow a learning strategy to flow smoothly.
These two cogs are what proficient learners possess. These two cogs are what
learning-strategy researchers probe.
In this article, I address the cognitive cog in four basic principles of
learning-strategy instruction. The set of cognitive principles that I propose
presupposes that a strategy instructor is capable of selecting (or devising) a
strategy th~atis optimally suited to the task at hand. In the case of selecting a
memory strategy, for example, one must initially consider whether the pur-
pose to which it will be put is for remembering an ordered list of names or
-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Joel R. Levin, Department of Educational Psychol-
ogy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706.
 4 LEVIN

facts, the definitions of unfamiliar words, the main idea of a prose passage,
the steps required to perform a mathematical operation, and so on. This
leads to the first, and most important, cognitive principle of learning-
strategy instruction.

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 1:
DIFFERENT LEARNING STRATEGIES
SERVE DIFFERENT COGNITIVE PURPOSES

Although it seems intuitively obvious - or that I am merely presenting old

wine in new bottles-it is important to begin with this principle of learning-
strategy instruction for no other reason than it does not appear to be "obvi-
ous" at all to many learning-strategyresearchers. Within the last decade, lit-
erally dozens of cognitive strategies have been proposed to improve students'
vocabulary learning, reading comprehension, problem solving, and the like
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

(see, e.g., Anderson & Armbruster, 1982; Brooks, Simutis, & O'Neil, 1985;
Pressley & Levin, 1983a, 1983b; Snowman & McCown, 1984; Tuma & Reif,
1980; Weinstein & Mayer, 1985). In almost every domain, researchers appear
to be continuing their quest for the single "best" strategy. Yet, as Levin and
Pressley (1985) have recently argued in reference to a variety of competing
vocabulary-learningstrategies, the question of which strategy is best needs to
be rephrased as a series of subquestions, such as: Which strategy is best for
remembering definitions? Which stratgy is best for inferring the meanings of
words in context? Which strategy is best for improving vocabulary usage,
grammar, spelling, and so on? (see also Morris, Bransford, &Franks's, 1977,
notion of "transfer-appropriate processing"). This multiple-objectives prin-
ciple must be at the forefront of researchers' learning-strategyconsiderations
in other domains as well.
In the context of reading comprehension, for example, popular strategies
include activating students' prior knowledge through the use of advance or-
ganizers or analogies, skimming, asking questions, mapping and net-
working, paraphrasing, imaging, note taking, reviewing, and summarizing.
But apart from prescribing that students use all of these strategies, what can
be said about the comparative effectiveness of each strategy? Distressingly,
little. Few studies have been conducted- and replicated -in which optimally
designed versions of the just-mentioned strategies have been pitted against
one another. Yet, even if such a contest were to be held, it is a foregone con-
clusion that no single strategy would emerge as the "winner." Strategy-
effectiveness comparisons would have to be made with reference to both dif-
ferent types of text (i.e., texts differing in content, structure, and format) as
well as different kinds of learning outcomes within each text type. The rank
orderings of strategy effectiveness are likely to change dramatically from one
prose-learning context to the next.
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTRUCTION 5

For example, I (Levin, 1982) have argued that prose-learning strategies di-
rected primarily at a passage's structure or top-level organization (what
Kintsch 62 Van Dijk, 1978, call ''macropropositions") would inot be expected
to be optimally suited to retrieving specific passage facts and details (the
"micropropositions'~)(for supporting empirical data, see Eylon & Reif, 1984;
Holley, Dansereau, McDonald, Garland, & Collins, 1979; Levin, Morrison,
McGivero, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, in press). Similarly, I have argued that
certain prose-learning strategies are better suited to enhancing students' com-
prehension of what they are reading (referred to here as understanding),
whereas other strategies are better suited to enhancing students' memory for
what they previously read (i.e., remembering). In the following discussion, I
extend the prose-learning distinction between understanding and remem-
bering to encompass creative problem solving, or students' ability to transfer
previously learned prose concepts to novel situations (applying) (see, e.g.,
Mayer, 1982)~
Pressley, Rorkowski, and Schneider (in press) have recently analyzed the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

components of students' efficient strategy selection and use within what they
call the "good strategy user" model (see also Michael Pressley's article in this
issue). My present emphasis on Understanding, Remembering, and Applying
as exemplars of different learning strategies for different purposes is encom-
passed by that model in what I refer to as "You're A (URA) Good Strategy
User." Within this simplified URA framework, understanding is regarded as
an information-processing component, being manifest when one is studying
a body of information. In contrast, remembering and applying are both re-
garded as infarmation-retrieval components, being manifest when one is re-
calling aspects of that information. Remembering, as used here, focuses pri-
marily on memory for specific content, whereas applying focuses on memory
for concepts in the service of problem solving and transfer.
A schematic representation of the URA components is depicted as a series
of potential strategy outcomes in Figures 1-5. For each of the figures, I illu-
strate how different learning strategies can be expected to operate differently
on the URA components. Starting at the top with a particular strategy, I trace
the presumed impact of that strategy on students' understanding, remem-
bering, and applying both specific content and general concepts. In these fig-
ures, solid arrows represent a strategy's direct impact upon a cognitive com-
ponent, whereas dashed arrows represent an unknown, or at best indirect,
strategy impalct.

Understanding Strategies

" Figure 1 represents a strategy that is effectively designed for enhancing stu-
dents' processing (understanding) of what they are studying. Yet, there is no
assurance that such increased understanding will result in either increased
memory (remembering) or transfer (applying) of the information previously
 T
Strategy 1

/' '\
//
Figure 1 Representation of a
Remembering

studied. As an example, consider the vocabulary-learning strategy known as

contextual analysis, whereby students are taught to capitalize on both inter-
nal and external contextual cues (e.g., Sternberg, Powell, & Kaye, 1983) to
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

infer the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary words, as well as other meaning-

and knowledge-based vocabulary-learning strategies such as semantic
mapping and semantic feature analysis (e.g., Johnson & Pearson, 1978).
Strategies of this kind are helpful to the extent that they clarify the meanings
of unfamiliar words by relating them to concepts that students already know
(through the use root words, affixes, synonyms, exemplars, etc.). This un-
doubtedly improves students' initial vocabulary comprehension, but there is
no reason to believe that such strategies will improve students' subsequent
memory for the vocabulary items' definitions, nor their ability to apply the
vocabulary items correctly in contextual tasks. A growing amount of empir-
ical data casts considerable doubt on the widely held assumption that
semantically based vocabulary-learning strategies facilitate vocabulary re-
membering (Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press).

Remembering Strategies

Figure 2 represents a strategy that impacts directly on remembering. In con-

trast to the semantic vocabulary-learning strategies just described, strategies
that involve the use of mnemonic techniques produce direct benefits on stu-
dents' memory for vocabulary definitions. The purpose of such strategies is
to create a systematic retrieval path from the unfamiliar vocabulary item to
its definition, without the need for enhancing students' understanding of the
vocabulary item during their initial processing of it. Research conducted
throughout the past decade supports the assertion that mnemonic vocab-
ulary-learning strategies are unquestionablythe most powerful strategies yet
devised for facilitating students' memory for vocabulary definitions (Levin &
Pressley, 1985; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press).
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTRUCTION 7

Understanding

Figure 2 Representation of a
strategy that facilitates remem-
Remembering Applying
bering.

Interestingly, some of the mnemonic-strategy research also suggests that

facilitated vocabulary application results directly from facilitated vocabu-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

lary remembering. That is, mnemonic strategies improve students' ability to

use and interpret vocabulary in context as a direct consequence of their hav-
ing greater memory for specific vocabulary definitions (see, e.g., Levin,
Dretzke, McGivern, & Pressley, 1985; McDaniel & Pressley, 1984). Recent
considerations of Japanese YiSdai mnemonics as applied to mathematics op-
erations and other curricular "procedures" also lead to the conclusion that
mnemonic strategies enhance application and transfer (e.g., problem
solving) through a direct link with enhanced remembering of specifics
(Higbee & Kunihira, 1985; Levin, 1985b; Pressley, 1985). This is represented
in Figure 2 by a (tentative) solid arrrow in the path from remembering to
applying.

Remembering-Through-UnderstandingStrategies

The preceding examples aside, strategies for understanding (on the one
hand) and strategies for remembering and applying (on the other) are not
necessarilly mutually exclusive. Indeed, many empirical and practical in-
stances of comprehension-enhancing strategiesleading to enhanced memory
can be documented (see, e.g., Bransford et al., 1982). Figure 3 represents a
strategy that facilitates remembering through its direct impact on under-
standing. In a prose-learning context, one would include semantic strategies
that serve to capitalize on students' prior knowledge of content and schemata
relevant to what is being learned (e.g, Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, &
Lawton, 1977; Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Peeck, van den Bosch, &
Kreupeling, 1982). The rationale underlying the use sf such strategies is sim-
ply that the more easily new information can be meaningfully integrated with
already established concepts, the more thoroughly it will be processed and re-
trieved. The literature suggests that prior-knowledge strategies do indeed fa-
 -\
\
Figure 3 Representation of a
Remembering
/I strategy that facilitates remem-
bering through understanding.

cilitate students' memory for prose content. However, whether or not poor-
knowledge strategies lead to enhanced problem solving and transfer of newly
learned concepts has not been adequately established, in my view (see also
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

Mary Gick's article in this issue).

Applying-Through-Understanding Strategies

In the prose-learning domain, strategy researchers have tended to concen-

trate on students' memory for specific content (details) and concepts (main
ideas). Issues of problem solving and transfer have been relatively unstudied.
An important exception to this generalization is the prose-learning strategy
research of Mayer (e.g., 1982). Among the various strategies he has investi-
gated, devising concrete analogies and models as critical components of ad-
vance organizers represents a strategy that likely has a positive impact on
both understanding and applying (see Figure 4). That is, Mayer has repeat-
edly demonstrated that when complex unfamiliar concepts are metaphori-
cally related to familiar concepts, students are better able to process and ap-
ply relevant information about the new concepts.
With concrete analogies, students' enhanced transfer of a passage's con-
cepts and principles presumably is mediated by an enhanced initial
processing of them (i.e., by the connections formed while relating the new
concepts to the familiar analogies during study)-hence, the solid arrow be-
tween understanding and applying in Figure 4. An important point about
analogical strategies, however, is that although they facilitate students'
retrieval of such higher order passage information, they do not facilitate-
and in many cases, they even diminish -students' memory for the passage's
specific facts and details (Mayer, 1982). Hence, whatever memory-for-
details benefits can be expected from the use of concrete analogies are at best
indirect (i.e., there is a dashed arrow from understanding to remembering in
Figure 4).
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTRUCTION 9

1
Strategy 4

Understanding

/
-
Figure 4 Representation of a
strategy that facilitates applying
through understanding.

Understanding-and-Remembering-and-Applying
Strategies
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

Figure 5 shows a prototype strategy (or more appropriately, a combination

of strategies) designed to impact directly on all three URA components. The
idea here is to integrate two or more strategies with different theoretical
strengths. To maintain my previously proposed prose-learning distinction
(Levin, 1982), briefly mentioned earlier, semantic strategies are typically
comprehension directed, whereas mnemonic strategies are typically memory
directed. Thus, by combining semantic strategies (e.g., concrete or taxo-
nomic organizers) with mnemonic strategies that have produced powerful
prose-memory effects (see, e.g., Levin, 1985a; McCormick & Levin, in
press), orie should be able to capitalize on the respective strengths of each. In
Figure 5, the mnemonic component (A) of a dual-component prose-learning
strategy leads directly to a set of remembering benefits (e.g., retrieval of con-
tent), and the semantic component (B) leads to an understanding-mediated
set of applying benefits (e.g., retrieval of concepts). Although combined

Fiigure 5 Representation of a
' /I Understanding

\C
v
strategy that facilitates understand-
Remembering
ing, remembering, and applying.
 10 LEVIN

strategies of this kind are still in a formative stage of development (e.g.,

Brooks & Dansereau, 1983; Snowman, Krebs, & Kelly, 1980), they hold a
good deal of promise for enhancing multiple learning objectives.
The aim of the preceding discussion was to show some possible ways in
which different learning strategies can effect different cognitive outcomes.
Though certainly not exhaustive, I believe that the present URA elaborations
of specific strategy knowledge in Pressley, Borkowski, and Schneider's (in
press) good strategy user model clearly illustrate the learning-strategy ana-
logue of different tools for different jobs. It is absolutely essential that strat-
egy researchers attend more to this first cognitive principle of learning-
strategy instruction.

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 2:
EFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES
SHOULD HAVE IDENTIFIABLE COMPONENTS
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

This principle is directly related to the first. In order to select the best strat-
egy for a particular learning outcome, one must compare the various
strengths and weaknesses of different strategies. Thus, whereas the first prin-
ciple is concerned with the whats and whiches of strategies, this principle re-
quires analyzing the whys and hows. That is, why is the strategy effective?
How does it operate? How can one describe its underlying components? The
antithesis of the "kitchen-sink" approach, where some amorphous strategy
can be described only as a collection of undifferentiated parts, the compo-
nent analysis approach involves a careful specification of the cognitive pro-
cess(es) that each identifiable strategy component is assumed to affect (see
also Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, & Elliott-Faust, in press).
There are essentiallytwo aspects of this component analysis principle. The
first is that if everything but the kitchen sink is thrown into a particular strat-
egy and if the strategy is successful, one will not be able to say much about
what makes it successful (see Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, & Elliott-Faust, in
press, for some notable examples). Even worse, if the strategy is ineffective,
one might end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps certain
components of the multiple-component strategy were effective, but they
were lost in the shuffle of other ineffective components. For example, in a
study recently reported by Larson, Dansereau, Hythecker, OYDonnell,
Young, Lambiotte, and Rocklin (1985)-which likely establishes a new
Guinness record for having the most combined authors and strategy subcom-
ponent~!-a strategy was devised for improving students' learning of tech-
nical text. The strategy, as conceptualized by the authors, had four major
components, which from their description encompassed at least the follow-
ing subcomponents: skimming, imaging, drawing, elaborating, para-
phrasing ("re-representing"), mnemonics, summarizing, prior knowledge,
analogies, and reviewing. In this case, a global strategyho-strategy compari-
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTRUCTION 11

son does not readily permit one to determine why the strategy did not work as
well as had been anticipated or what might be done to improve it. In contrast,
t h e s , v ~ ~ ~ v L a t i a n a n d ~ d a f ~ ~ a o ~ a r s u b ~ -
ponents within the context of either a factorial design or smaller scale "titra-
tion" studies (Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, & Elliott-Faust, in press) might
have provided some relevant clues.
The second aspect of the component analysis principle is that effective
learning strategies do not work magically, nor do they work because of the la-
bels attaiched to them (e.g., students "constructed taxonomies," "para-
phrased," or "used imagery"). Rather, every learning-strategyactivity needs
to be accounted for in terms of processing-relevant variables and operations
(e.g., prior knowledge, meaningfulness, organization, repetition, feedback,
concreteness, elaboration, retrieval cues). That is, in addition to attempting
to localize strategy effects with respect to facilitated comprehension, mem-
ory, or transfer (as in the previous section), component analyses require in-
formed judgments about the causes of such facilitation. Examples of in-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

formed judgments include the following: "Concrete organizers facilitate

students' comprehension of unfamiliar complex concepts through connec-
tions made with familiar concrete ones." "Mnemonic techniques facilitate
students' memory for specific information through the provision of both
encoding elaborations and direct retrieval paths."
Learning-strategy researchers are urged to conduct routine component
analyses in relation to the specific strategies they are investigating. The objec-
tive of thlese analyses is for the researcher to map strategy components onto
both presumed cognitive processes and learning outcomes. It is recognized
that specifying the precise cognitive mechanism(s) underlying a given strat-
egy component invariably leads to scholarly debate. Yet, I think it important
that a strategy's components be isolated and scrutinized, if only at the level of
demonstrating face validity. Whether or not the conclusio~vsdrawn from a
component analysis are theoretically "correct" or "precise" should not be a
limiting factaa.

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 3:
LEARNING STRATEGIES MUST BE CONSIDERED
IN RELATION TO STUDENTS' KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS
The third calgnitive principle of learning-strategy instruction is that there
must be a "match" between strategy and learner characteristics (see also
Bransforti, 1979). Strategies must be devised with the specific skills and
competencies of the learner in mind. If not, the best that one can hope for is
that the strategy will be effective for only some students; at worst, it will be
effective for none. In the learning-strategy research that I have conducted
over the years, a fundamental assumption has been that the student's
 12 LEVIN

processing capacity is a critical factor to be considered when prescribing

a learning strategy (e.g., Ghatala & Levin, 1976; Levin, 1976; Levin &
Pressley, 1985). That is, certain strategies that are well suited to adults may
not be well suited to children; or strategies that older children can apply ef-
fectively cannot be applied effectively by younger children. Often the adult
version of a particular strategy can be adapted for use by children through
simplification, concretization, extensive prompting, and practice (see, e.g.,
Pressley, 1983).
Similar statements can be made about modifying learning strategies for use
by educationally handicapped (e.g., learning disabled or educable mentally
retarded) students (e.g., Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Levin, 1985; Pressley &
Levin, in press) or by students with skills that differ from those demanded by
the strategy (e.g., Levin & Pressley, 1985). The point here is simply that blan-
ket statements about strategy effectiveness or ineffectiveness need to be re-
placed by statements about the applicability of a particular strategy for par-
ticular learners or groups of learners (Cronbach & Snow, 1977).
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

Another important topic to be included under the "strategy/student

match" principle concerns interactions between students' prior knowledge
and strategy efficacy. Interactions with domain-independent (or "decon-
textualized") knowledge are subsumed by the foregoing discussion of the
learner's processing capacity and general skills. Yet, recent data suggest that
learning strategies must also be considered in relation to the domain-specific
knowledge that students possess (e.g., Kuhara-Kojima & Hatano, 1985;
Miyake & Norman, 1979; Rabinowitz, 1984). What students already know
about an instructional domain moderates, to a large extent, the degree to
which a strategy capitalizing on that prior knowledge will be effective (see,
e.g., Glaser, 1984). In the Kuhara-Kojima and Hatano study, for example,
students with high levels of background knowledge in a particular domain
benefited from the use of an elaboration strategy applied to that domain,
whereas students with low levels of background knowledge did not. This
heretofore understudied component of learning-strategy instruction is likely
to produce a number of interestingnew approaches and applications (see also
Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, in press, for a discussion of the role of
prior knowledge in their good strategy user model; and Mary Gick's article in
this issue).

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 4:
THOUGHT-TO-BE-EFFECTIVE LEARNING
STRATEGIES REQUIRE EMPIRICAL VALIDATION
Just like Burns's "best laid plans of mice and men," it is one thing to design
something beautiful on paper, yet quite another to make it "work." So too
have thought-to-be-effective learning strategies not always fulfilled their
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTRUCTION 13

promise. Once again, there appear to be two different aspects of this princi-
ple. First, people often prescribe strategies on the basis of their own personal
experiences, intuitions, and common folkways, rather than from a more de-
tached scientific perspective. Second, people rarely take into consideration
the complexities and intricacies that arise from the application of a strategy
in practice, in contrast to the smooth-flowing nature of it in their imagina-
tions.
Regarding the first point, in a series of investigationsthat I collaborated on
with Michael Pressley and Elizabeth Ghatala, we were surprised to discover
that both moire and less sophisticated student learners believe that an inef-
fective lei~rnimgstrategy is effective just because it is commonly used or pre-
scribed (IdcGivern, Levin, Ghatala, & Pressley, in press; Pressley, Levin, &
Ghatala, 1984; Pressley, Ross, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984). Moreover, such mis-
beliefs ar~edifficult to eradicate even in the face of sharply contradictory evi-
dence. For example, despite considerable research evidence to the contrary,
otherwise well-informed researchers and educators still cling to the mistaken
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

belief tha~tsemantic-based strategies are effective vocabulary-remembering

facilitators (Imin & Pressley, 1985; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press).
Similarly, Barbara Moely's article in this issue documents that teachers'judg-
ments about good and poor strategies are not always correct; moreover, even
though camulative rehearsal is cited as a strategy that is well suited to chil-
dren's serial recall, it must be pointed out that the mnemonic story, pegword,
and loci methods (e.g., Bellezza, 1981) are even better suited to that task
(e.g., Levin & Rohwer, 1968; Tolfa-Veit, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, in press)!
Let us now consider the second point, namely that strategy breakdowns oc-
cur as one moves from imagining what works to assessing what works. One
particularly salient example comes from the domain of mnemonic strategy
instruction, where it was found that a commercially available set of materials
for remembering the states and their capitals (Lucas, 1978)did not work at all
as intended when subjected to empirical test (Levin, Berry, Miller, & Bartell,
1982). The problem in that particular case turned out to be the idiosyncratic
strategies generated by Lucas, as well as the complexity of those strategies
when targeted for elementary school children.
The composite moral for the present set of cognitive principles is that all
theoretically or intuitively appealing learning strategies- no matter how
reasonable on paper - must be empirically investigated under carefully
controlled conditions before their effectiveness can be evaluated. An impor-
tant addendum to this moral can be found in a chapter by Peterson and
Swing (1983), where it is argued that learning strategies that work well in a
controlled laboratory context need not -indeed, often do not -work well in
a classroom context. As the argument correctly goes, even theoretically
sound anid empirically tested learning strategies require classroom validation
before they can be prescribed for classroom use.
 14 LEVIN

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

As was noted at the outset, the four cognitive principles proposed here ad-
dress only one of the two critical cogs of learning-strategy instruction. A par-
allel set of metacognitive principles of learning-strategyinstruction is a mat-
ter for future consideration, although a sound basis for such a set can be
gleaned from the contributions to this issue by Elizabeth Ghatala, Barbara
Moely, Michael Pressley, and John Thomas and William Rohwer (see also,
Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, in press). It can be reasonably argued that
once the two sets of principles have been separately specified, the task con-
fronting the designer of effective learning-strategy instruction is simply -or
maybe not so simply! -one of interfacing the two through appropriately
coordinated connections. Happily, in the last few years, learning-strategy re-
searchers have begun to realize that such connections need to be made.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by in part by a grant from the Wisconsin Center
for Education Research through the National Institute of Education and by a
Romnes Faculty Fellowship through the Graduate School of the University
of Wisconsin, Madison.

REFERENCES
Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1982). Reader and text-studying strategies. In W. Otto &
S. White (Eds.), Reading expository material (pp. 219-242). New York: Academic.
Bellezza, F. S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification,characteristics, and criteria. Review of
Educational Research, 51,247-275.
Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and remembering.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., &
Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 390-398.
Brooks, L. W., & Dansereau, D. F. (1983). Effects of structural schema training and text
organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
811-820.
Brooks, L. W., Sirnutis, Z. M., &O'Neil, H. F., Jr. (1985). The role of individual differences in
learning strategies research. In R. F. Dillon @d.), Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 2,
pp. 219-248). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., Day, J. D., Townsend, M. A. R., & Lawton, S. C. (1977). Intrusion
of a thematic idea in children's comprehension and retention of stories. Child Development,
48, 1454-1466.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York:
Irvington.
 LEARNING-STRATEGY INSTlWCTION 15

Eylon, B . S . , & Reif, I?. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task performance.
Cognition and Instruction, 1, 5-44.
Ghatala, E. S., CLevin, J. R. (1976). Children's recognition memory processes. In J. R. Levin&
V. L. Men (Eds.), Cognitive learning in children: Theoriesand strategies (pp. 61-100). New
York: Academic.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39,
93-104.
PIigbee, K. L., & Kunihira, S. (1985). Cross-culturalapplications of YEdai mnemonics in educa-
tion. Educational Psychologist, 20, 57-64.
Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Garland, J. C., & Collins, K. W. (1979).
Evaluation of a hierarchical mapping technique as an aid to prose processing. Contemporary
Educatiolnal Psychology, 4, 227-237.
Johnson, I). D., & Pearson, P. ID. (1978). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Kintsch, W., &van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychologicaf Review, 85, 363-394.
Kuhara-Kojima, K., & Hatano, G. (1985, April). Domain-generalstrategy and domain-specific
knowledge as determinants of paired associate learning performance. Paper presented at the
annual meetinin - of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. -
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

Larson, C. O., Qansereau, D. F., Hythecker, V. H., O'Donnell, A., Young, M., Lambiotte, J.
G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1985). Technical training: An application of a strategy for learning
structural and'functionalinformation. Unpublished manuscript, Texas Christian University,
Fort Worth.
Levin, J. R (1976). What have we learned about maximizing what children learn? In J. R. Levin
& V. L. Allen (Eds.), Cognitive learning in children: Theories m d strategies (pp. 105-134).
New York: Academic.
Levin, J. R. (1982). Pictures as prose-learning devices. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Dis-
courseprocessing (pp. 412-444). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Levin, J. R. (1985a). Educational applications of mnemonic pictures: Possibilities beyond your
wildest imagination. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery in education: Imagery in theeducational
process (pp. 63-87). Farmingdale, NY:Baywood.
Levin, J. R. (1985b). Y6dai features = mnemonic procedures: A commentary on Higbee and
Kunihira Educational Psychologist, 20, 73-76.
Levin, J. R., Berry, J. K., Miller, G. E., & Bartell, N. P. (1982). More on how (and how not) to
remember the states and their capitals. Elementary School Journal, 82, 379-388.
Levin, J. R., Dretzke, B. J., McGivern, J. E., & Pressley, M. (1985). In search of the keyword
method/vocabulary comprehension link. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10,
220-227.
Levin, J. R., Morrison, C. R., McGivern, J. E., Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (in press).
Mnemonic facilitation of text-embedded science facts. American Educational Research
Journal.
Levin, J. R., & F'ressley, M. (1985). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What's fact, what's fic-
tion. In R. F. 1)alon (Ed.), Individualdifferencesin cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 145-172). Orlando,
FL:Academic.
Levin, J. R., & Ilohwer, W. D., Jr. (1968). Verbal organization and the facilitation of serial
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 186-190.
Lucas, J. (1978). Ready, set, remember. White's Creek, TN: Memory Press.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Maximizing what exceptional children
can learn: A review of research on the keyword method and related mnemonic techniques. Re-
medial and Spmial Education, 6(2), 39-45.
 16 LEVIN

Mayer, R. E. (1982). Instructional variables in text processhg. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch

(Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 445-461). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
McCormick, C. B., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Mnemonic prose-learning techniques. In M.
Pressley & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), The imaginalandrnnernonicbases of learning. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
McDaniel, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1984). Putting the keyword methodin context. Journal ofEd-
ucational Psychology, 76, 598-609.
McGivern, J. E., Levin, J. R., Ghatala, E. S., & Pressley, M. (in press). Can selection of an ef-
fective memory strategy be induced vicariously? Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Miyake, N., &Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is
not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 18, 357-364.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer ap-
propriate processing. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on
young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Be-
havior, 11, 201-209.
Peeck, J., van den Bosch, A. B., & Kreupeling, W. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowl-
edge on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 771-777.
Peterson, P. L., & Swing, S. R. (1983). Problems in classroom implementation of cognitive
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015

strategy instruction. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitivestrategy research: Educa-

tional applications (pp. 267-287). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M. (1983). Making meaningful materials easier to learn: Lessons from cognitive strat-
egy research. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational
applications (pp. 239-266). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M. (1985). More about YGdai mnemonics: A commentary on Higbee and Kunihira.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 69-72.
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (in press). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy
users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals
of child development (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D., & Elliott-Faust, D. J. (in press). What is strategy instruc-
tional enrichment and how to study it: Illustrations from research on children's prose memory
and comprehension. In F. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal
changes and individual development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.). (1983a). Cognitive strategy research: Educational applica-
tions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.). (1983b). Cognitivestrategy research: Psychologicalfounda-
tions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (in press). Elaborative learning strategies for the inefficient learner.
In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychologicalaspects of learning
disabilities 0701. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategymonitoring in adults and
children. Journal of VerbalLearning and VerbalBehavior, 23, 270-288.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (in press). Rememberingversus inferring what a
word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Pressley, M., Ross, K. A., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). The role of strategy utility
knowledge in children's decision making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38,
491-504.
Rabinowitz, M. (1984). The use of categorical organization: Not an all-or-none situation. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 338-351.
 Snowman, J., Krebs, E. W., &Kelly, F. J. (1980, April). Enhancing memoty forprose through
learning strategy training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Boston.
Snowman, J., &: McCown, R. (1984, April). Cognitive processes in learning: A model for
investigatingstrategiesand tactics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Ed-
ucational Research Association, Mew Orleans.
Sternberg, It. J., Powell, J. S., & Kaye, D. B. (1983). Teaching vocabulary-building skills: A
contextuad approach. In A. C. Wiikinson (Ed.), Classroom computers and cognitive science
(pp. 121-143). New York: Academic.
Tolfa-Veit, D., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (in press). Extended mnemonic instruction
with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Tuma, D. T., & Rdf, F. (Eds.). (1980). Problemsolvingandeducation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 01:21 05 January 2015