Skip to main content

The effect of conceptual and contextual familiarity on transfer performance


Applying a previously learned concept to a novel problem is an important but difficult process called transfer. It is suggested that a commonsense analogy aids in transfer by linking novel concepts to familiar ones. How the context of practice affects transfer when learning using analogies is still unclear. This study investigated the effect of a commonsense analogy and context familiarity for transfer of physiological concepts. First year psychology students (n = 24) learned three concepts: Starling’s law, Laplace’s law, and laminar-turbulent flow. The control group saw standard explanations while the intervention group saw an additional commonsense analogy. The context of learning was the organ system used for two practice clinical cases which differed for all concepts. Testing consisted of 12 new clinical cases. Starling’s law cases used the organ system from practice while the other concepts presented in both novel and familiar organ systems. Half of the sample repeated testing after 1 week delay. The outcome was ratings of explanations of cases on a 0–3 scale. The effect of analogy was significant (Mean = 1.24 with, 0.86 without, F(1,22) = 4.26, p < 0.05) but not after delay (means of 1.08 and 0.75 respectively, F = (1,10), p = 0.06) There was significant effect for familiar context (Same = 1.23 (Starling), different = 0.68 (Laplace) and 0.73 (laminar-turbulent flow) (F(2,44) = 5.14, p < 0.01). Laplace’s law and laminar turbulent flow cases in the familiar organ system had means of 1.65 and 1.77 respectively compared to novel cases with means of 0.74 and 0.68 (F(1,22) = 35.64, p < 0.0001). Similar effects were observed after delay. There was significant decay in performance after delay for all participants (immediate = 1.17, delayed = 0.91, F = 11.9 (1,10) p < 0.01). Common analogies aid conceptual understanding necessary for transfer. Despite conceptual aids, solving transfer problems is difficult.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  • Boshuizen, H. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates, and novices. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Learning subgoals and methods for solving probability problems. Memory and Cognition, 18, 593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 225–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structural-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52, 32–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1980). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory & Cognition, 19, 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newby, T. J., Ertmer, P. A., & Stephic, D. A. (1995). Instructional analogies and the learning of concepts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., Dore, K., Krebs, J., & Neville, A. J. (2007). The power of the plural: Effect of conceptual analogies on successful transfer. Academic Medicine, 87(Supp), S16–S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J., & Fredenksen, C. H. (1986). Differences between medical students and doctors in memory for clinical cases. Medical Education, 20, 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similar effects. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 629–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H., & Kennedy, P. T. (1990). Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. N. (2007). Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 41, 1173–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2005). The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: Creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Medical Education, 39, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kulamakan Kulasegaram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kulasegaram, K., Min, C., Ames, K. et al. The effect of conceptual and contextual familiarity on transfer performance. Adv in Health Sci Educ 17, 489–499 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: