Hi Vincent,

in my opinion it might be a promising step to extent the range of search to deep processing learning strategies which include elaboration.

In some studies elaboration acts as a mediator between interest and achievement, which includes retention.

One example (in German language, maybe its ok for you):

Schiefele, Ulrich; Wild, Klaus-Peter; Winteler, Adolf (1995): Lernaufwand und Elaborationsstrategien als Mediatoren der Beziehung von Studieninteresse und Studienleistung. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 9 (3/4), S. 181–188.

Our actual study is located in that area and there seems to be a mediation effect, too.

Best regards,

Matthias

Some further suggestions:

Diseth, Åge; Martinsen, Øyvind (2003): Approaches to Learning, Cognitive Style, and Motives as Predictors of Academic Achievement. In: Educational Psychology 23 (2), S. 195–207. DOI: 10.1080/01443410303225.

Evans, Carol; Vermunt, Jan D. (2013): Styles, approaches, and patterns in student learning. In: British Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (2), S. 185–195. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12017.

I have two suggestions in order to improve the long term retention rate of the learner:

1. We can ask our students to record the conceptual facts in their mobile in the later stage then and there we can insist them to listen to the audio (including during the travel, hotel, parks etc.,)

2. We can insist them to draw a mind map/concept map/ knowledge map and they can paste these posters in their living room then and there they can see to these charts. These two methods definitely will improve the long term retention rate.

Finally, if we ask them to participate in the oral presentation activity that also improves the retention rate.

I don't remember any paper specifically addressing this issue but I suggest you the keyword: "meaningful learning"

Following your example of a definition. You can memorize it or you can work on the definition, trying to make your own, seeing why that definition is the way it is, what concepts are included in it, what are the differences with other definitions by other authors, the historical period of each of them, etc.

In the first case you are using a pure verbal memory. The memory codification is poor because there are few clues, therefore the retrieval of that item will suffer.

In the second case, the memory codification is rich because you will have created multiple associations with concepts you had previously stored in your brain, and new connections with new facts. Those associations will be imprinted with positive emotions we get from learning thanks to the action of the amygdala and other parts of the limbic system.  Memories imprinted with emotion are longer-lasting. Memory retrieval will be good because any association will trigger the rest of the data as it's richly connected in your memory.

You will have also to take into account the memory model used for the interpretation of what's going on (i forgot the authors of the one i just described).

Thank you all for the wonderful answers! I will be sure to read the suggested literature, which I'm positive contains the answers I seek. Much appreciated!

Kind regards,

Vincent

The research program initiated by Ernie Rothkopf is directly relevant. Ernie used what he called adjunct questions inserted in text such that a student (S) could not re-examine a passage after being given a question on it; this treatment induced heightened attention to the text, with possible rehearsal before getting to the adjunct question. Here is a summary about this research program by Will Thalheimer, PhD (http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/03/mathemagenic_pr.html  )

Tuesday, 14 March 2006

Mathemagenic Processing and Ernie Rothkopf

Mathemagenic Processing

In the mid-1960's, Rothkopf (1965, 1966), investigating the effects of questions placed into text passages, coined the term mathemagenic, meaning "to give birth to learning." His intention was to highlight the fact that it is something that learners do in processing (thinking about) learning material that causes learning and long-term retention of the learning material.

When learners are faced with learning materials, their attention to that learning material deteriorates with time. However, as Rothkopf (1982) illustrated, when the learning material is interspersed with questions on the material (even without answers), learners can maintain their attention at a relatively high level for long periods of time. The interspersed questions prompt learners to process the material in a manner that is more likely to give birth to learning.

Although the term mathemagenic was hot in the late 1960's and 1970's, it gradually faded from use as researchers lost interest in the study of adjunct questions and as critics complained that the word was too abstract and had little meaning beyond the operations of the research paradigm.

Despite having fallen into disfavor, the term—and the research it generated—have proven invaluable. The adjunct- question research showed us that test-like events are useful in helping learners to bolster memory for the information targeted by the question and to stay attentive to the most important aspects of the learning material. The concept of mathemagenic behavior is very much a central component in the way we think about learning. Who could doubt today that it's the manner in which learners process the learning material that makes all of the difference in learning.

Citations:

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1965). Some theoretical and experimental approaches to problems in written instruction. In J. D. Krumboltz (Ed.). Learning and the education process (pp. 193-221). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 241-249.

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1982). Adjunct aids and the control of mathemagenic activities during purposeful reading. In W. Otto & S. White (Eds.) Reading expository material. New York: Academic Press."

I also conducted a study with inserted questions, only I permitted the students to look back at the text to answer the questions to achieve realism for natural study. This experiment varied the reading difficulty of the text and the questions, and also examined correlations on aptitude scales (e.g., anxiety and confidence) with immediate  and tow week retention:

Learning from prose text: Effects of readability level, inserted question difficulty, and individual differences. Hiller, Jack H.

Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 66(2), Apr 1974, 202-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036273

Abstract

Studied immediate and 2-wk retention as a function of 3 levels of text readability and 2 levels of inserted postquestion difficulty. 28 undergraduates served as Ss. The inserted postquestion treatment was modified to permit review of text after question answering. A traditional control group was required to read without marking lesson pages; a 2nd control group was permitted complete freedom. Both inserted postquestion treatments produced significantly inferior acquisition of content incidental to the inserted postquestions for 2 lessons having below-average readability. For an average readability lesson, only the difficult inserted postquestions produced lower acquisition. Treatment differences diminished to nonsignificant levels on 2-wk retention. Learning was correlated with anxiety (Alpert-Haber Achievement Anxiety Test) and self-confidence in the 2 lower-than-average readability lessons but not in the average one. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

You will find in the report that a control group without inserted questions who read a moderately difficult version of the text had the highest level of test performance two weeks later when tested, and that anxiety and self confidence correlated as might be expected. My conclusion is that the moderately difficult text induced slower, more careful reading, with inherent repetition, to achieve understanding.

One of the most effective leaning strategies for remembering, hence,  retrieval from long term memory is the so called testing effects or retrieval practice. I would guess that there are more than 400 publication on the topic. With support from both behavioral an neuroscience studies.  Below is a review of 10 different learning techniques, among other retrieval practice. Note that Dunlosky et al denotes retrieval practice as practice testing. See also  Karlsson Wirebring for neuroscientific  evidence, focusing on the difference between repeated study and retrieval

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266

Karlsson Wirebring, L., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Eriksson, J., Andersson, M., Jonsson, B., & Nyberg, L. (2015). Lesser Neural Pattern Similarity across Repeated Tests Is Associated with Better Long-Term Memory Retention. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(26), 9595-9602. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3550-14.2015

Shouldn't the effectiveness or efficacy of the elaboration be considered relevant to the variable?  What would effective elaboration design then look like according to the researcher?

Review of the literature on mnemonics expertise may be helpful.