Differential-associative processing or example elaboration: Which strategy is best for learning the definitions of related and unrelated concepts?

Abstract

Definitions of related concepts (e.g., genotype–phenotype) are prevalent in introductory classes. Consequently, it is important that educators and students know which strategy(s) work best for learning them. This study showed that a new comparative elaboration strategy, called differential-associative processing, was better for learning definitions of related concepts than was an integrative elaborative strategy, called example elaboration. This outcome occurred even though example elaboration was administered in a naturalistic way (Experiment 1) and students spent more time in the example elaboration condition learning (Experiments 1, 2, 3), and generating pieces of information about the concepts (Experiments 2 and 3). Further, with unrelated concepts (morpheme-fluid intelligence), performance was similar regardless if students used differential-associative processing or example elaboration (Experiment 3). Taken as a whole, these results suggest that differential-associative processing is better than example elaboration for learning definitions of related concepts and is as good as example elaboration for learning definitions of unrelated concepts.