In defence of keyword experiments: A reply to Gruneberg's commentary

Gruneberg (1998) argues that our findings (e.g. Wang and Thomas, 1992; Thomas and Wang, 1996) that the keyword method of foreign language learning leads to poorer long-term retention than rote rehearsal when the delay interval is manipulated between subjects is uninteresting because, in a natural setting, students would normally be tested soon after study. In reply, we assert that our data are internally valid and inform us with respect to the nature of the underlying causal relationship. Specifically, our experimental findings lead us to conclude that the imagery-based encodings of the keyword method are very fragile and unlikely to be retrievable after a delay unless frequently rehearsed. Also, another consequence of the difficulty of retrieving keyword images is that translation time is slower for keyword learners than for learners who rote rehearse. We argue that design and implementation of language instruction programmes is most likely to be successful when educators understand the underlying causal factors. Consequently, informed debate on the effectiveness of a learning strategy can only proceed with evidence gathered from both, experimental and real-world settings. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.