The Curious Case of Transfer of Learning
What it is, Why it is so difficult to achieve in education, and What can teachers do?
Part 1: The Aim of Education
One of the biggest puzzles of our education system is that despite years of learning from primary to higher ed level, most students do not have acceptable competence in thinking, reading, and writing. They are not able to imagine, to solve problems, to create new ideas.
For instance, by the time a student reaches the grad level, he should be able to write decent essays, think critically, and propose ideas. Regardless of the stream or domain. However, I’ve seen a lot of grad students struggling to even write a clear paragraph.
Similarly, graduates should be able to join any organization, let’s say a bank, and start the work right away. But, many companies have voiced their utter dissatisfaction over the competence of graduates. We’ve even seen posts/opinions like, we don’t hire for your knowledge, we hire for attitude.
So, how did these happen?
Some quick answers would be, because:
the entire education system is a failure
the exam system is a joke
the curriculum has not be updated for several years
the subjects are irrelevant
the lack of practical education
the teachers can’t/don’t do their job well
The usual ones.
One of the promises of an education system is that students would be able to take their learnings from the classroom into the real world scenario, connect the dots, and solve the problems of the community.
But why doesn’t the learning transfer that easily?
Is there’s something else beyond the education system and the usual suspects?
“There is no more important topic in the whole psychology of learning than transfer of learning . . . practically all educational and training programs are built upon the fundamental premise that human beings have the ability to transfer what they have learned from one situation to another.”
- James Desse, 1958, The Psychology of Learning
Learning is a complex process. And one basic “laws of learning” is that one has to have a lot of prior knowledge, deeply structured and embedded in our memory structure.
Learning is a difficult job. We all wish it was easier. But it is not. Unfortunately, there’s no short-cut to learning and mastering any skills. Any fast-food version of learning scheme just is not sustainable.
Similarly, learning is highly unpredictable and uncertain. We never know what is useful and what is not at the moment. We never know how well will we be able to use our knowledge and skills in the real context.
In the classic book, Transfer of Learning, Robert Haskell writes:
“The aim of all education, from elementary, secondary, vocational, and industrial training, to higher education, is to apply what we learn in different contexts, and to recognize and extend that learning to completely new situations. Collectively, this is called transfer of learning.”
Meaning, transfer of learning refers to how prior knowledge and skills influence current and future learning, and how past or current learning is applied or adapted to familiar or unfamiliar situations. That’s one major aim of all education.
A simple example in the transfer of thinking skills. If a student is able to compute the arithmetical form of 2 + 2 = 4, he should be able to compute 3 + 3 as well. By transfer of thinking, if he understands one problem of addition (2 + 2 = 4), he can generally understand the similar problems of addition (3 + 3 = 6). And, eventually be able to compute any addition related problems, say 119 + 77.
Similarly, when a student understands a general concept, she should be able to transfer the learning through “abstraction, analogical relations, archetypal thinking, classification, generalization, generic thinking, induction, relations, logical inference, metaphor, and mental models” in new contexts.
But then Haskell drops the bomb:
“Despite the importance of transfer of learning, research findings over the past nine decades clearly show that as individuals, and as educational institutions, we have failed to achieve transfer of learning on any significant level.”
Even with the advancement in education system, teaching learning pedagogy, integration of technology, the internet, and so many educational solutions (along with trends and fads), the problem of transfer of learning remains with us like “an antibiotic-resistant bacterium”.
To achieve significant transfer of learning, Haskell writes, our current education system requires much more than just focusing on teaching skills, techniques, and learning strategies.
Especially, the current trend in schools of forcing kids to think like adults/experts is a rather unproductive one. SMH.
Part 2: Understanding Transfer
Let’s dive in.
First, we need a basic schema to understand transfer and why it is such an elusive process.
The research on teaching for transfer, Haskell writes, shows that for transfer to happen successfully, “the original learning must be repeatedly reinforced with multiple examples or similar concepts in multiple contexts, on different levels and orders of magnitude.”
Thus the teaching that promotes transfer involves going back again and again to the core/fundamental idea or procedure and each time, on different levels and in different contexts, with different examples.
This looks like repetition is the key to transfer. Not as a linear or even a circular process. But a process similar to a spiral where each new turn is more complex, more abstract, more unfamiliar.
Makes sense.
Haskell also proposes 6 levels of transfer.
This is quite interesting. Because by understanding the levels of transfer of learning, we can then recognize how, when, and where the transfer happens or does not happen.
Level 1: Nonspecific transfer.
When a learner is able to connect the new information or learning with the prior learning.
Level 2: Application transfer.
This refers to applying what one has learned to a specific situation. Still within a familiar context.
For example, one learns about the billing system and applies the learning to actually create bills of any transactions. Or, one learns how to write a job application through email and then applies the learning to actually apply for a job.
Level 3: Context transfer.
This level refers to applying what one has learned in a slightly different situation. May be outside the classroom. Or in a different workplace.
Interestingly, even though the knowledge or skills are exactly the same, there might be a lack of transfer.
For example, a student can demonstrate well within the classroom. But in an exam setting, outside the school, the student can not demonstrate well enough. A journalist might work well in a government owned media but can not perform the same tasks in a private media.
Level 4: Near transfer.
In this level, the learner can transfer knowledge or skill to a new situations that are quite similar but not exactly identical.
A person experienced in driving a car in the city can transfer the skill to driving a truck the highway, is an example of near transfer. Or when a learner uses the knowledge of profit and loss practiced during the classroom activities to help her father keep records in his grocery shop.
Level 5: Far transfer.
This refers to applying learning to situations that are quite dissimilar to the original learning.
At this level, a lot of application looks like analogical thinking. When a student can relate to the idea of chemical equations as a form of two compatible or incompatible people arguing with each other.
Level 6: Displacement or creative transfer.
This refers to transferring learning in a way that leads to new ideas, new theoris, new applications, new solutions, and new discoveries.
An example of creative transfer is how the medieval mathematician Al-Haytham invented the concept of camera obscura by experimenting with a pinhole, using the window shutters of a completely darkened room. This later paved the way for inventing cameras and telescope.
Part 3: The Necessary Ingredient for Successful Transfer
Haskell writes, rather in a critical tone,
“In recent years, acquiring a large knowledge base has been basically ignored in education, replaced by a focus on programs that teach learning strategies, heuristics, and general thinking skills, with a minimal knowledge base required. In short, the focus is on short-cuts to learning. The problem is there are no short cuts.”
I have to admit. This completely changed by perspective on teaching. There’s no short cut to making a novice learner think/behave like an expert. Just because one needs to be creative and critical thinker in the real world, it is impossible to force-fit creativity and critical thinking into the brain of a novice learner.
Let me talk about chess, which has only a handful of rules and strategies, which anyone can learn right away.
But if you teach me - a complete novice at chess - a bunch of strategies and make me play against a chess master, I would fail miserably. Just because I know the rules of chess and I have a few strategies does not mean I can “think” like a chess master.
Meanwhile a chess master, say Magnus Carlsen, has a deeper knowledge base that allows him to know the intricate relationships among the chess pieces and unlimited patterns of the moves. He knows that by practicing and playing for thousands and thousands of hours in familiar and unfamiliar contexts.
Yes, we both know the rules and strategies. But his knowledge base could be 20 miles wide and 50 miles deep, while mine is an inch wide and an inch deep.
Like mentioned above: transfer of learning requires repetition. Lots of repetitions in similar context, in different content, and in unfamiliar context. And, a knowledge base that is well organized and shaped like a spiral.
Knowledge base is not only important in fields like maths or engineering but in the creative arts as well.
Haskell notes that there are people (both students and teachers) who believe they can perform great acts of creativity by sheer force of their intellect and will power.
Interestingly, some even avoid acquiring knowledge, believing that it may spoil the purity of their individual creations.
I can happily agree with Haskell. This belief is just pure nonsense.
Final Take Aways for Teachers:
Let me end this three-parter with three big take aways:
When learning is viewed as transfer, the primary factor influencing learning is the knowledge the individual brings into and uses in the particular learning situation.
Therefore, the primary focus of teacher will be to help the students build the knowledge base in a particular subject.Knowing how to teach is important. Very important. But the knowledge of the subject is even more important. To teach effectively, the teacher must also understand the conceptual structure of the discipline or areas being taught. Meaning, they must first possess deeper knowledge base and also understand how the base is organized. Only then can they teach for transfer.
And, focus on repetition. Not a mindless drill and kill. But repetition as a way to go back to the core/foundation ideas again and again. And then increasing the magnitude, complexity, and unfamiliarity. Change the context. Increase the challenge. Assess and repeat.
This is incredibly coincidental that I came across this article. I wrote an essay this time last year exploring this myself and yet did not come across this textbook in the process. Would you recommend reading the book itself or rather recommend other sources complimentary to your article? The reason I ask is, it seems impossible to purchase this book anywhere.