Transfer of Learning
Definition:
Transfer of learning is the fundamental goal of education. Generally speaking it is a
process in which knowledge constructing in one particular context or situation (source
task) is used in a different context or situation (target task) after being called up,
amalgamated and or adapted. (Bossard, Kermarrec, Buche, & Tisseau, 2008).
History and evolution of Learning Transfer
There is significant scholarly disagreement with regard to the concept of transfer, how it
is defined, the extent to which transfer occurs and the nature of the underlying processes
associated with transfer (Lobato, 2006). In the early 1900s studies identified that
learning in one setting did not appear to translate or be accessible in another type of
setting. In an effort to understand what is required for learning to be transferred to new
situations, a variety of divergent view points and theoretical frameworks about learning
transfer in the literature have emerged over the last century. This divergence is in part
because of: 1) the different paradigms or learning theories (behaviourist, cognitivist or
constructivist) scholars use to approach the study of learning transfer; 2) what aspects of
transfer researchers choose to focus on, e.g., content or process; and 3) what aspects of
the process of transfer, the learner, the task or the context ((Bossard et al., 2008;
McKeough, Lupart &Marini, 1995). Carraher & Schliemann (2002) suggest the part of
the problem is that transfer has traditionally been viewed as a problem to be explained
instead of being treated as a theory about learning. They contend that the classical
construct of learning transfer is fundamentally flawed and the concept of transfer should
be abandoned completely (Carraher & Schliemann, 2002).
In the 1880s the general belief was that transfer would be accomplished by the training of
basic mental faculties. Mental discipline psychology suggested that training in one task
would promote performance in another task through an increase in mental capacity and
flexibility. A classic example of this was the belief that the functioning of the mind could
be improved by the study of subjects such as logic or Latin. By the turn of the century,
transfer was being explored in behaviourist and empirical terms. The concept of transfer
over the next 100 years would be influenced by the evolution of the dominant
psychological theories of learning at the time (Cox, 1997).
While scholars have differing opinions about the concept of transfer, most reference
Edward Thorndike (1874-1949), as the founder of Educational Psychology, and as one of
the first researchers on the subject of learning transfer. Both Edward Thorndike and
Robert Woodworth (1901) are credited with the development of the Identical Elements
Theory of Transfer. Briefly, this theory suggests that the extent to which information
learned one situation will transfer to another is determined by the similarity of the two
situations; the more similar the situations the more likely the transfer. Identical elements
must be present in both the source and task situations for transfer to occur (Thorndike and
Woodworth 1901). Around the same time another psychologist, Charles Judd (1873-
1946), argued that the identical elements theory was too simplistic and that transfer
depended on how instruction was carried out. If the instructor taught for transfer and the
learner discerned there was something meaningful to transfer then transfer would occur
(Judd, 1908).
Gestalt psychology also had an early influence over the concept of transfer. Transfer was
seen to be related to the relationship between stimuli and meaningful insight, perception,
subjective experience and learning by problem solving (Cox, 1997; Katona 1940). In
1987,Gick and Holyoak suggested that transfer is not based on actual similarities but on
perceived similarities (Gick and Holyoak 1987).
While Gestalt concepts influenced ideas about learning transfer, it was the behaviourist
paradigm that held the most influence in thinking until the 1980s. The behaviourists
explained transfer with out referring to mental processes. The learner was viewed as
adapting to environments and learning was essentially a passive process. The problem
that scholars faced, stemming back to Thorndike’s work, was that “similarity in stimulus
conditions between training and transfer situations rarely promoted far-reaching transfer”
(Cox, 1997). Identifying significant transfer was proving to be a challenge. Several
researchers have reported little or not transfer in their experiments and observations
(Reed, Ernst & Banerji, 1974; Hays & Simon 1977; and Gick & Holyoak, 1983).
Detterman (1993) is often quoted as saying:
“The lesson learned from studies of transfer is that if you want people to learn
something, teach it to them. Don’t teach them something else and expect them to figure
out what you really want them to do.”
Failure of transfer has been attributed by some, to the behaviourist’s work being
conducted in laboratory settings (Campione, Shapiro and Brown 1995). While Campione
et al give recognition to the contributions of the laboratory research, they contended that
the labs are not natural settings. They contended that classroom research offers a more
rich and complex environment in which to explore the concepts of transfer. Lave (1988)
suggested that the root of the transfer problem was that knowledge cannot be divorced
from context and was against the idea of transfer because knowledge and skills are
context bound (Lave 1988). Brown, Collin and Duguid (1989) also claimed that
knowledge is tied to sociocultural contexts and therefore only near transfer can be
achieved. In the 1980s – 1990s researchers began questioning assumptions about
knowing, knowers and learning from the perspective of situated cognition (Lobato,
2006). Campione et al (1995) extended the concept of transfer by defining transfer as
understanding, that is, learners gain understanding from their context by constructing
relationships between situations so the context is a self constructed relationship not the
setting. This facilitates transfer because learners, through understanding, are then able to
explain their knowledge and processes, pushing the concept of transfer into the realm of
metacognition. Campione et al have studied transfer by creating innovative class room
approaches to facilitate collaborative learning environments that promote the use of
metacogntive strategies in learners (Campione et al 1995).
The idea of understanding emerging from the construction of relationships between
situations fits with cognitive constructivist theories that emphasize abstraction on the part
of the learner. The belief here is that transfer would occur if abstraction is used,
inherently by the learner, to apply learning when responding to similar situations and,
overtly if used to apply learning to dissimilar situations (Bossard et al., 2008).
The interest in cognitive strategies has also given rise to the exploration the process of
how learning is transferred. This has resulted in several characteristics that are used to
describe transfer. Examples of these characteristics are the concepts of low road and high
road transfer (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Low-road transfer depends on extensive, varied
practice and occurs by the automatic triggering of well-learned behaviour in a new
context. High-road transfer occurs by intentional, mindful abstraction of something from
one context and application in a new context.
Carraher & Schliemann (2002) note that the focus on cognitive research and theories
have expanded the scope of understanding of transfer by embracing more abstract
cognitive and mental schema to explain transfer removing the requirement of having
identical elements of stimuli for transfer. Lobato (2006), provides a list of several other
approaches to transfer that offer a rethinking of the concept of transfer (e.g., Abstraction
and Metaphor) that have emerged in response to critiques of transfer.
a. Transfer as consequential transitions (Beach, 1999, 2003)
b. The affordances and constraints approach (Greeno, 1997)
c. Preparation for future learning (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Schwartz & Martin,
2004)
d. The actor-oriented transfer perspective (Lobato, 2003)
e. Several activity theoretic perspectives (Tuomi-Grohn & Engstrom, 2003; van
Oers, 2004).
Carraher & Schliemann (2002) propose that learning transfer research needs to address
the continued ongoing tension between former knowledge and new phenomena by
suggesting the re-visitation of Piaget’s notions of assimilation and accommodation.
Assimilation ensures the continuity of learning and integration of new elements into
previous schemas while accommodation ensures the construction of new knowledge
modifying the assimilatory schema.
The notion of assimilation and accommodation being applied to the concept of transfer
has also been put forth by Knud Illeris (2009). Illeris contends that transfer problems are
often identified in relation to the transition between boundaries of different learning
spaces such as the educational space and the working space. He suggests that transfer of
learning between spaces can be accounted for by addressing different types of learning
that has taken place as well as the quality of the outcome (Illeris, 2009). Based on the
concept that learning is situated (Lave & Wenger 1991), Illeris contends that specific
learning situations become an integrated part of the learning process and outcome and
that different types of learning situations (spaces) imply different categories of learning
(cumulative, assimilation, accommodation and transformative) having significantly
different qualities associated with them. Illeris suggests that the transfer of learning
between the educational space and the working space can be addressed by providing a
balance between assimilative and accommodative learning (Illeris 2009).
The following are some of the definitions that describe transfer:
Cumulative learning is characterized by being isolated information something new that
is not a part of anything else. This type of learning occurs when one has to learn
something with no context or meaning or personal importance. Often occurs in early
years on in special situations where one has not prior context).
Assimilative learning is characterized by addition. The new element is linked as an
addition to a scheme that has already been established. Such learning is relatively easy to
recall and apply when one is mentally oriented towards a context in question (most
common form of learning).
Accommodative Learning is characterized by the breakdown of parts of an existing
scheme and reconstruction in such away that it allows the new situation or information to
be linked in. (Experienced when something takes place that is difficult to immediately
relate to any existing scheme but becomes experiences as something deeply internalized).
Transformative Learning is characterized by simultaneously restructuring several
schemes including emotional and social patterns. (This is experienced as profound and
extensive and typically occurs in a crisis like situation).
Concepts that Characterize Transfer
Type of Transfer
Near *
(widely used term)
Far *
(widely used term)
Vertical **
Horizontal **
General **
Specific **
Positive ***
Negative ***
Low Road ****
Characteristic
Near transfer occurs when we transfer previous knowledge to new
situations closely similar to, yet not identical to, initial situations.
Far transfer entails the application of learning to situations
entirely dissimilar to the initial learning.
Previous knowledge of a subject is required to acquire new
knowledge. This type of transfer involves tasks that are
procedural.
Previous knowledge is not essential. Knowledge is used to solve a
new problem or a new task where complexity does not matter
Learning task is extended to many fields of knowledge
Learning task are close or in the related field
Occurs when learning in one context improves performance in
some other context
Occurs when learning in one context impacts negatively on
performance in another.
Depends on extensive, varied practice and occurs by the
High Road ****
High Road ****
Forward Reaching
High Road ****
Backward Reaching
automatic triggering of well-learned behaviour in a new context
Occurs by intentional mindful abstraction of something from one
context and application in a new context
Transfer whereby one mindfully abstracts basic elements in
anticipation for later application
Transfer where one faces a new situation and deliberately
searches for relevant knowledge already acquired
* (Calais, 2006), ** (Bossard et al., 2008), *** ( Perkins & Salomon, 1992), ****
(Salomon & Perkins, 1989)
Situation Related: Near/Far; Vertical/Horizonal; Specific/General
Process Related: Low Road/ High Road; Forward Reaching/ Backward Reaching
Effect Related: Positive/Negative
Teaching for Transfer
“The goal of education is to provide learning experiences that are useful beyond the
specific conditions of initial learning. For example the design of innovative curricular
materials and pedagogical approaches is often aimed at helping students develop robust
understandings that will generalize to decision making and problem solving in other
situations both in and outside of the classroom.” (Lobato, 2006)
Importance of transfer:
Transfer is the central goal of education
Knowledge base plays a central role in our cognitive processes. Researchers have
demonstrated that the absence of an appropriate knowledge base, not developmental
stage, is responsible for younger children’s failure to transfer (Calais, 2006).
Considerations for Instruction (Marini and Genereux 1995, Chapter 1 In Teaching for
Transfer)
What to focus on?
The task:
basic elements of transfer, materials, problems
The learner: ability, dispositions (readiness, motivation) cognitive process capacities
The context: physical and social settings. Resources, support of the teacher, behaviour
of other learners, norms/ beliefs, attitudes,
(Course design should take all three into account for a holistic approach).
Extent of Transfer? What can reasonably be expected? Need to assess goals.
What should be taught?
Basic facts and procedure:
Performance strategies:
Metacognitive strategies:
Steps in performing tasks
strategies for completing the task
Strategies for directing, monitoring and evaluating ones
own thinking and learning?
How should we teach to facilitate transfer?
Example:
In some learning situations transfer will occur automatically, however some learning
situations are less favourable. Perkins and Salomon suggest two methods for promoting
transfer in learning situations:
Hugging: Engage learners in approximations of the desired performance. The learning
experience “hugs” the target performance maximizing the likelihood of automatic, low
road transfer.
Bridging: Exploits high road transfer by creating instructional experiences that
encourage the making of abstractions, searching for possible connections, mindfulness
and metacognition. (Salomon & Perkins, 1989)
How to teach for transfer?
Various approaches and been implemented to facilitate transfer:
 Engineering a Community of learners through a collaborative learning
environment in the classroom (Campione, Shapiro & Brown 1995, Chapter 3 in
Teaching for Transfer)
 Promoting Transfer through model tracing (Singley 1995,Chapter 4 in Teaching
for Transfer)
 Use of a Narrative structure for Transfer ( McKeough 1995,Chapter 7 in Teaching
for Transfer)
 Project base learning
o Collaborative Problem Solving (Nelson Course Chapter 11 in Reigeluth
1999)
o Learning Communities in Class rooms ( Bielaczyc & Collins, Chapter 12
in Reigeluth 1999)
Challenge: Teachers today are being asked to teach in a world that is very different from
the ones they experienced.
References
Beach, K.D. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond
transfer in education. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 24, pp 101-140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Beach, K.D. (2003). Consequential transitions: A developmental view of knowledge
propagation through social organizations. In T. Tuomi-Grohn & Y. Engstrom,
(Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundarycrossing (pp. 39-62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science.
Bossard, C., Kermarrec, G., Buche, C., & Tisseau, J. (2008). Transfer of learning in
virtual environments: a new challenge? Virtual Reality, 12(3), 151-161.
doi:10.1007/s10055-008-0093-y
Bransford, J.D., & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research
in education (Vol. 24, pp 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., &Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Calais, G. (2006). Haskell’s Taxonomies Of Transfer Of Learning: Implications For
Classroom Instruction. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal,
20(3), 1-8.
Campione, J.C., Shapiro, A.M., & Brown, A.L. (1995). Forms of Transfer in a
Community of Learners: Flexible Learning and Understanding.
In A. Mckeough, J. Lupart, and A . Marini (Eds.). Teaching for Transfer (pp. 3568). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (2002). The Transfer Dilemma. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 11(1), 1-24. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_1
Cox, B. D. (1997). The rediscovery of the active learner in adaptive contexts : A
developmental-historical analysis .. The Rediscovery of the Active Learner in
Adaptive Contexts : A Developmental-Historical Analysis of Transfer of Training.
Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 41-55.
Detterman, D.K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In
D.K. Detterman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition,
and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive
Psychology, 12,306-355.
Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S.M.
Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and
applications (pp. 9-47). New York: Academic Press.
Greeno, J.G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational
Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
Hayes, J.H.,& Simon, H.A. (1977). Psychological differences among problem isomorphs.
In J. Castellan, D.B. Pisoni & G. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory, Vol 2 (pp. 21-41).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Illeris, K. (2009). Transfer of learning in the learning society: How can the barriers
between different learning spaces be surmounted, and how can the gap between
learning inside and outside schools be bridged? International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 28(2), 137-148. doi:10.1080/02601370902756986
Judd, C.H. (1908). The relation of special training to general intelligence. Educational
Review, 36, 28-42.
Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice
versa. Educational Researcher. 32(1), 17-20.
Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning : History , Issues ,
and Challenges for Future Research. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431449.
Marini, A. and Genereux, R. (1995) The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A.
Mckeough, J. Lupart, and A . Marini (Eds.). Teaching for Transfer (pp. 1-19). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc
McKeough, A. (1995). Teaching narrative knowledge for transfer in the early school
years. In A. Mckeough, J. Lupart, and A . Marini (Eds.). Teaching for Transfer (pp.
153-176). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Reed, S.K, Ernst, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between
similar problem states. Congitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Salomon & Perkins 1989.pdf. Educational
Pscyhologist.
Schwartz, D.L., & martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden
efficiency of encouraging original studen production in statistics instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184.
Singley, M.K. (1995). Promoting transfer through model tracing. In A. Mckeough, J.
Lupart, and A . Marini (Eds.). Teaching for Transfer (pp. 69-92). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Thorndike, E.L, and Woodworth, R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental
function upon the efficacy of other mental functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261.
Retrieved from: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Transfer/transfer1.htm
Tuomi-Grohn, T. & Engstrom, Y. (2003). Conceptualizing transfer: From standard
notions to developmental perspectives. In T. Tuomi-Grohn & Y. Engstrom, (Eds.),
Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp.
39-62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science.
van Oers, B. (2004). The recontextualization of inscriptions: An activity-theoretical
approach to the transferability of abstractions. In J. Lobato (Chair), Rethinking,
abstraction and decontextualization in relationship to the "transfer dilemma."
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.