Do Mnemonics Count As “Teaching Students How to Study”?
It’s a tale as old as time—well, at least in my professional life. I meet a teacher out in the world, they ask what I do, and I reply, “I teach educators how to teach students to study!”
Without fail, their eyes light up: “Oh, I definitely help students study. I use a ton of mnemonics!”
I smile knowingly. Educators love sharing the clever acronyms, rhymes, and acrostics they’ve collected over the years. And it’s true—some mnemonic use has been shown to double or even triple recall compared to rote memorization. They feel like secret weapons, and many teachers, tutors, and academic coaches are rightfully proud of how they use them.
But here’s the thing: handing students a witty or useful mnemonic isn’t the same as teaching them how to study. It’s more like tossing them the answer key instead of teaching them how to puzzle it out themselves.
Because I’ve always struggled with how to respond to this well-meaning enthusiasm, I decided it was time to dig into the research—to find out when mnemonics really work and when they fall flat.
Along the way, I realized that mnemonics are only one piece of the puzzle. They can spark memory, but if we want lasting learning, we need to pair them with other cognitive and metacognitive strategies—retrieval practice, spaced repetition, elaboration, and more.
That’s exactly what we’ll explore in my upcoming masterclasses, Beyond Flashcards and Beyond Learning Styles. These sessions dive into the science of how students actually learn—and how we, as educators and coaches, can move beyond the tricks to help learners think critically, reflect metacognitively, and retain for the long haul.
But before we explore those deeper strategies, let’s take a closer look at when mnemonics do (and don’t) work—and why understanding the “why, how, and when” behind them matters so much.
TL;DR
If you don’t have time to read the whole post, here are the main nuggets:
Mnemonics really do work—but only in certain contexts. They’re most effective for remembering discrete facts, ordered lists, or vocabulary, especially when used alongside other strategies like retrieval practice or elaboration.
Understanding and creation matter. Students remember more when they know why a mnemonic works, when to use it, and how to build their own. That’s where true metacognitive growth and learning agency happen.
Mnemonics have limits. Overusing or misusing them—especially for complex or conceptual material—can backfire by oversimplifying ideas or adding unnecessary cognitive load.
This blog may resonate most with:
Academic coaches and tutors who want to help students build flexible, research-based learning systems.
Classroom teachers who use memory tools and want to deepen their understanding of when and why they work.
Special educators and learning specialists who teach study strategies to neurodiverse students.
Now, let’s dive into the research:
🧩 So First, the Good News: Mnemonics Do Work (Especially for Discrete Facts)
For starters, let’s give credit where it’s due—mnemonics really can work wonders.
If you need a quick refresher, a mnemonic is any memory aid that helps learners encode or retrieve information more easily. Think of old-school examples like:
“Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally” (PEMDAS) for remembering the order of operations in math, or
HOMES for recalling the Great Lakes (Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Superior).
These little linguistic or visual hooks give the brain something to “grab onto.” And research backs up their power. Meta-analyses and large research syntheses consistently show that mnemonic techniques are among the most effective ways to remember discrete facts and lists.
For example, the Visible Learning meta-framework show that mnemonics perform well—often rivaling powerhouse strategies like retrieval practice, and far outperforming familiar favorites like rereading or highlighting. Mnemonics strengthen recall of specific facts, while retrieval practice strengthens students’ ability to use what they know flexibly.
Similarly, Adam Putnam’s (2015) review found that mnemonics are powerful but often underused—or misapplied—in classrooms. The main culprits? Tight pacing guides, test-driven instruction, and the pressure to “cover” content rather than teach students how to learn it. Putnam notes that teachers tend to use mnemonics for simple recall (like lists or definitions) but rarely help students link those cues to deeper understanding or flexible application. In other words, mnemonics get treated as a quick fix instead of as part of a broader study system—a pattern that limits their real potential.
Side note: This “broader study system” is what we’ll be digging into in the upcoming masterclasses: Beyond Flashcards and Beyond Learning Styles.
Here’s another cool finding: in a procedural learning study by Radović & Manzey (2019), participants who used a mnemonic acronym to master a multi-step task not only learned faster but also recovered more quickly after interruptions. The structure of the acronym itself shaped how they mentally represented the process—essentially giving their brains a cognitive map.
So yes, mnemonics aren’t just classroom gimmicks or party tricks. Under the right conditions—memorization of lists, sequences, foreign vocabulary, or procedural steps—they can absolutely move the needle for many students.
🧠 🧠 When Students Understand and Create Their Own Mnemonics, Learning Sticks
Another important theme emerged from my study, that also affirms the work we do in the Anti-Boring Learning Lab:
It’s not enough to hand students a clever memory trick; they also need to understand why it works—and ideally, have a hand in creating it themselves.
Consider this now-classic study from Borkowski, Carr, and Pressley (1987). They ran an experiment with children learning memory strategies and discovered that how the strategy was taught made all the difference.
Children were randomly assigned to different instructional groups. Everyone learned a simple categorization-based mnemonic for recalling word lists. However, only one group, the “elaborated-instruction” group, received explicit metacognitive coaching about why and when to use it. Their instruction included three key ingredients:
The “why.” Students were taught why mnemonic strategies help memory—because they make information more meaningful, connect ideas, and give the brain retrieval cues. Teachers explained how this process strengthens memory and recall.
The “when.” They were shown when to use the strategy, with concrete examples—like when they needed to remember lists, steps, or isolated facts that didn’t yet make sense. They learned to recognize appropriate contexts for using mnemonics versus times when another approach might work better.
The “how.” They practiced the mnemonic deliberately while reflecting on questions like, “What did I just do?” and “How well did that work?” Teachers modeled this kind of self-questioning, turning strategy use into a habit of reflection.
The results were striking. Compared with students who were simply shown how to use the mnemonic and told to “try it,” the elaborated-instruction group showed:
higher recall accuracy,
more organized retrieval (grouping ideas meaningfully), and
more spontaneous transfer of the strategy to new learning tasks.
Borkowski and his team concluded that metacognitive knowledge—not just exposure to the tool—drives flexible, independent strategy use.
This pattern shows up across the research. In a study of Japanese vocabulary acquisition, students who were trained not just in the mnemonic device but also in self-monitoring and reflection scored higher and used their strategies more effectively. The more they understood the why, the more powerfully they used the how.
It also turns out that learner-created mnemonics work better than teacher-created memory aids.
For example, generative learning theories tell us that people remember longer when they actively reorganize, visualize, or explain information in their own way (a phenomenon we’ll explore more deeply in the Beyond Learning Styles Masterclass).
In the context of mnemonics, that means the process of making the memory aid—rather than memorizing someone else’s—transforms passive repetition into active meaning-making.
Adam Putnam’s (2015) study echoes this point: mnemonics work best when learners invest effort in mapping their own associations instead of relying solely on pre-made examples.
When we invite learners to co-create their own mnemonics—while also teaching them why and when to use them—we’re not just improving memory. We’re cultivating agency, metacognition, and authentic study skill mastery.
These findings make me smile because it’s exactly what we emphasize in the Anti-Boring Learning Lab. Every tool we share—whether it’s about note-honing, retrieval practice, or time management—comes with the same triple focus: the why, the how, and the when.
We don’t just hand educators tricks to pass along to students; we help them teach the science behind the strategies and coach learners to experiment and reflect, so learning how to study becomes an act of agency, not compliance.
If these ideas light you up, join me for Beyond Flashcards and Beyond Learning Styles this October—or access them later inside the Anti-Boring Learning Lab. We’ll go deeper into the “why, how, and when” behind every study skill and executive function tool—mnemonics included—and show you how to help students design their own strategies, from concept maps to visual notes, for deeper processing and longer retention.
🚦 When Mnemonics Don’t Work (and Why That’s Important to Know)
Cool. Mnemonics work. Good to know. But now we add an important layer of nuance:
Even the best study strategies have limits, and mnemonics are no exception. We need to watch out for boundary conditions and pitfalls if we want to use them well.
A meta-analysis of mnemonic training in older adults found that mnemonics can boost short-term recall but often yield only small-to-moderate effects over the long term, suggesting they’re great for cramming but not always for long-term retention.
(Yes, that research is on older adults—but it raises a red flag worth considering for younger learners, too.)
Adam Putnam’s review also notes that mnemonics often struggle when content is complex or abstract. A catchy acronym or rhyme may flatten nuance—or even propagate misconceptions (think how PEMDAS sometimes misleads students into thinking multiplication always comes before division).
Here’s where it gets even more critical: mnemonics can increase cognitive load if they’re overly complex, poorly designed, hard to map clearly, or if a student is trying to remember too many. A mnemonic that takes more mental effort to use than to just remember the content defeats its own purpose.
I’ve long suspected—and some research supports—that successful mnemonic use depends on working-memory management. A mnemonic only helps when it lightens the load, not adds to it. For students with limited working-memory capacity or executive-function challenges—for example, many learners with ADHD, processing differences, or language weaknesses—an elaborate rhyme or acronym can become another thing to juggle. Teaching learners to test, tweak, simplify, and even abandon a mnemonic when it’s not working is just as important as teaching the mnemonic itself.
So yes, mnemonics can absolutely help—but they work best when used strategically and sparingly, such as:
for lists, sequences, or arbitrary facts;
in combination with deeper study practices like retrieval, elaboration, and note honing;
and with ongoing reflection about what’s working, what isn’t, and why.
That’s exactly the kind of nuance we explore inside the Anti-Boring Learning Lab—and we’ll be diving even deeper during our upcoming October 2025 masterclasses. Speaking of which…
📣 Ready to Level Up? Join Us
Be honest—how often do you reach for a clever acronym or rhyme when students struggle to remember something? Mnemonics feel satisfying because they work…sometimes. But the real opportunity lies in helping students understand when and why they work. That’s where authentic study-skill coaching begins—fostering independence and deeper thinking.
Whether you’re a classroom teacher or an academic coach, remember this: mnemonics aren’t just cute memory tricks.
They’re powerful tools that fit within a much larger framework of strategic learning.
They’re most effective when students grasp why they work, when to use them, and how to adapt them for their unique learning needs.
Remembering facts and figures is only one piece of genuine study-skill mastery. The real transformation happens when students learn to combine and flex strategies according to the needs of the content being studied.
That’s exactly where we’re headed in the Beyond Flashcards and Beyond Learning Styles masterclasses—grounded in the latest cognitive science and designed to help you build a flexible, evidence-backed toolbox for your students:
Click here to join us at Beyond Flashcards, where we deep into retrieval strategies—how students pull knowledge out when it counts most.
Click here to join us at Beyond Learning Styles, where we explore encoding strategies—how students process, organize, and store new information effectively.
Mnemonics are fascinating because they bridge encoding and retrieval depending on how they’re used. You can join whichever one fills the biggest gap in your study-skills teaching toolbox—or come to both and experience how they beautifully complement each other!
If you’re reading this in October 2025, we hope you join us!! If you’re reading this later, don’t worry—you can still access the masterclass recordings inside the Anti-Boring Learning Lab, where you’ll also join a vibrant community and get full access to our entire suite of study skills and executive function courses.
Now that you’ve seen what the research says, how might you respond the next time a colleague says, “I teach study skills! I use tons of mnemonics!”
I think I know what I’ll say now—but I’d love to hear how you’d frame that conversation. Share your thoughts in the comments!