Introduction to “New Conceptualizations of Transfer of Learning”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HEDP #695710, VOL 47, ISS 3 Introduction to “New Conceptualizations of Transfer of Learning” Robert L. Goldstone and Samuel B. Day QUERY SHEET This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left can be found in the text of the paper for reference. In addition, please review your paper as a whole for correctness. Q1. Au: Is “Susquehanna University” the correct affiliation for Dr. Day? The email address we have for him is for Indiana University. Q2. Au: Leeper (1935) does not have a matching reference. Provide complete reference or remove citation. Q3. Au: Ball (1999): Provide reference or remove citation. Q4. Au: Chi (2005): Provide complete reference or remove citation. Q5. Au: Provide page number of illustration in Leeper 1935, name of copyright holder (the publisher of The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology), and year of copyright. Q6. Au: Your original manuscript said Figure 2 was “reprinted with permission from the publisher.” Please provide a copy of the communication from the publisher granting you permission to reproduce this figure. Q7. Au: Nokes-Malach & Belenky, in press, does not have a matching reference. Provide complete reference or remove citation. Q8. Au: Chi (2012): Provide complete reference or remove citation. Q9. Au: Ball (2011) does not have a matching text citation; please cite in text or delete. Q10. Au: Schwartz et al. (2007): Please provide chapter page range. TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING The table of contents for the journal will list your paper exactly as it appears below: Introduction to “New Conceptualizations of Transfer of Learning” Robert L. Goldstone and Samuel B. Day EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 47(3), 1–4, 2012 Copyright C Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.695710 Introduction to “New Conceptualizations of Transfer of Learning” Robert L. Goldstone Department of Psychology 5 Indiana University Samuel B. Day Department of Psychology Q1 Susquehanna University Understanding how to get learners to transfer their knowledge to new situations is a topic of 10 both theoretical and practical importance. Theoretically, it touches on core issues in knowl- edge representation, analogical reasoning, generalization, embodied cognition, and concept formation. Practically, learning without transfer of what has been learned is almost always un- productive and inefficient. Although schools often measure the efficiency of learning in terms of speed and retention of knowledge, a relatively neglected and subtler component of efficiency 15 is the generality and applicability of the acquired knowledge. This special issue of Educational Psychologist collects together new approaches toward understanding and fostering appropriate transfer in learners. Three themes that emerge from the collected articles are (a) the importance of the perspective/stance of the learner for achieving robust transfer, (b) the neglected role of motivation in determining transfer, and (c) the existence of specific, validated techniques for 20 teaching with an eye toward facilitating students’ transfer of their learning. Most educators want their students to apply what they have scenario on the right). Students complained that they were 40 learned beyond its original classroom context. Biology teach- not given any well problems in class. ers want their students to understand the genetic mechanisms However, there are recent suggestions that students underlying heredity, not simply how pea plants look. Physics can, under some circumstances, transfer their knowledge 25 teachers want their students to understand fundamental laws across superficially dissimilar domains (Pedone, Hummel, of physics such as conservation of energy, not simply how & Holyoak, 2001; Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005; 45 a particular spring uncoils when weighted down. Unfortu- Schwartz, Sears, & Chang, 2007). In fact, in some cases, nately, having students transfer what they have learned to transfer seems to be spontaneous and automatic. When peo- new scenarios that draw on the same principles has proven ple are first shown the unambiguous man illustration on the 30 surprisingly difficult to achieve (Detterman, 1993; Gick & left, they subsequently interpret the ambiguous man-rat fig- Holyoak, 1980, 1983). Considerable research indicates that ure as a man, but when they are first shown the rat illustration 50 students often do not spontaneously transfer what they have on the right, they interpret the ambiguous picture as a rat Q2 learned, at least not across superficially dissimilar scenarios. (Figure 2; Leeper, 1935). This kind of perceptual priming In one striking example, Perkins (2009) cited the amusing, is not typically construed as transfer, but it does represent 35 but also horrifying, case of physics students who learned in a clear case in which people spontaneously carry along ac- class how to determine how long it would take a ball to fall quired interpretational strategies without explicitly trying to 55 to the bottom of a certain height tower (see Figure 1A) and apply their learning to new situations. then were given on an exam the problem of determining how The goal of this special issue of Educational Psycholo- long it would take a ball to fall to the bottom of a well (the gist is to synthesize new theoretical positions, informed by empirical data, about whether and how transfer of knowl- Correspondence should be addressed to Robert L. Goldstone, Depart- edge is achievable. This is a timely topic for Educational 60 ment of Psychology, Indiana University, Psychology Building, Bloomington, Psychologist because of the recent resurgence of interest in IN 47405. E-mail: [email protected] transfer. Part of the reason for this resurgence is the renewed 2 GOLDSTONE AND DAY to the growth and structure of cities, lungs, and snowflakes (Ball, 1999) will likely develop an appreciation of science Q3 in which any field can potentially bear on another field (Chi, 85 2005; Chi, Slotta, & deLeeuw, 1994). Q4 Another reason for a renewed interest in transfer in cog- 4C/Art nitive science and education is that there has been a method- ological shift from measuring transfer by learners’ explicit statements of correspondence between domains to implicit, 90 indirect measures that students may be sensitive to the con- nection between situations without being able to explicitly verbalize the basis for the connection. This expanded view FIGURE 1 A graphic illustration of the challenge of transferring of what counts as evidence for transfer has taken several acquired knowledge. Note. David Perkins (2009) reported a physics forms. Some researchers have focused on how students learn 95 classroom in which students were first given falling ball problems of how to see events as manifesting principles, and how this Q5 the kind illustrated in A. Students were shown how to determine how learning prepares them for seeing future events in terms of long it would take the ball at the top of the 100-m tower to reach the ground. They were later tested on problems such as B in which a ball the same principles (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Other started at the top of a 50-m well and fell down to the bottom. Several researchers have looked for indications that students have Q6 students complained that they had never been given “well” problems been influenced by previous activities by examining how they 100 before, only “tower” problems (color figure available online). construe situations as similar to the earlier activity (Lobato, 2003, 2012/this issue; Lobato & Seibert, 2002). Similarly, researchers have argued for transfer occurring by students understanding that important principles frequently arise in developing perceptual interpretations of an initial situation different domains. For example, complex systems princi- and simply continuing to use the same interpretational bias 105 65 ples such as positive and negative feedback loops arise in when interacting with a second situation (Day & Goldstone, economics, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, and the so- 2011, 2012/this issue; Goldstone, Landy, & Son, 2010). cial sciences (Chi & VanLehn, 2012/this issue; Goldstone & The specific goals of this special issue are to discuss what Wilensky, 2008). Students who learn about a positive feed- we know about transfer of learning and how best to foster it. back systems from an example of a microphone feeding into, The contributed articles tackle core questions such as 110 70 and placed near, a loudspeaker are missing out on an oppor- tunity for applying their knowledge to an economics situation of people purchasing products that other people had already • How is transfer best conceptualized? purchased if they do not engage in cross-domain transfer. It • Is transfer of learning to (apparently) dissimilar situations is true that there is a major trend in science toward increas- a viable, and valuable, goal? 75 ingly specialized research topics. However, there is also a • How is transfer affected by the ways in which materials scientific movement to reverse this trend, pursuing the pos- are presented by instructors and approached by students? 115 sibility that the same principles can describe seemingly very • What are the best methods of pedagogical practice for different phenomena. One attractive aspect of this movement fostering transfer? from an educational perspective is that it promotes a view of • What are the cognitive, distributed, and social processes 80 science that is enfranchising rather than alienating. Students that underlie transfer? who can apply the Diffusion-limited Aggregation principle • What are the roles of context, perception, grounding, rules, 120 that they learned while exploring copper sulfate formations and formalisms for achieving transfer? FIGURE 2 Stimuli from Leeper (1935), from “A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning—The Development of Sensory Organization,” by R. Leeper, 1935, The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46. Note. When the ambiguous man-rat is preceded by the unambiguous man, it is spontaneously interpreted as a man, but when it is preceded by the unambiguous rat, it is spontaneously interpreted as a rat.