Transfer

A Framework for Understanding and Interpreting Transfer

The transfer literature is rife with contradictory findings and conclusions. However, these disagreements often stem from inconsistencies in the use of modifiers for the term transfer. For example, a common distinction used in the literature is between near and far transfer. Near transfer refers to a situation in which the context of original learning and the new context are similar, whereas far transfer refers to a situation in which the contexts are very different. Although this distinction seems clear in abstract form, such a simple definition of near and far transfer becomes problematic when different researchers try to apply it to different sets of contexts. The result is the inconsistent use of terminology within the literature, where what constitutes near transfer in one study might be considered far transfer in another study. Other distinctions about the nature of transfer have been equally problematic in practice, such as parallel versus vertical transfer (i.e., whether original learning is on the same level or subordinate to new learning) and specific versus general practice (i.e., the degree of specificity in the relationship between original learning and new learning).

In an effort to resolve the confusion regarding the use of terminology and make sense of the findings in the literature, Susan Barnett and Stephen Ceci proposed a framework that conceptualizes the process of transfer as a set of dimensions, each characterizing a continuum along which the new context can differ from the context of original learning. The dimensions proposed in the framework are the following: knowledge domain (the domain to which the knowledge or skill belongs; e.g., physics, art, and sociology), physical context (the environment in which learning takes place, e.g., classroom, playground, and laboratory), temporal context (the amount of time that elapses between original learning and new learning; e.g., minutes, days, and years), functional context (the perspective or mind-set with which the individual views the situation; e.g., academic test, informal social interaction, and leisure activity), social context (whether the learner is alone or learning with others; e.g., alone, in a pair, and in a small group), and modality (the sensory modality and structure of the learning activity; e.g., visual, auditory, and written). Each dimension is represented as a continuum along which the degree of transfer can vary from near to far. For example, near transfer along the dimension of knowledge domain might consist of learning about physics and then applying this knowledge to another topic within physics or applying it to another science like biology. In contrast, far transfer might consist of learning about physics and then applying this knowledge to sociology or art. [Page 1708]Importantly, two contexts can vary in terms of one or more dimensions, thus providing an additional way to conceptualize near versus far transfer.

...