Abstract
This is a case study of a physics undergraduate who claimed that he “uses physics to understand other subjects.” This statement suggested that this student could describe issues concerning the transfer of learning and especially instances of far transfer. Detailed instances of far transfer have been difficult to replicate in lab settings. Therefore, three interviews were designed to investigate this student’s claims about using physics to understand other subjects as a means to better understand far transfer processes. Transfer in this case study is defined as the personal construction of relations of similarity. Furthermore, I operationalize this definition of transfer via 12 aspects of transfer derived from the work of several contemporary researchers who study the transfer of learning. As part of this case study I also investigate the subject’s motivation for engaging in far transfer. Directions for future research are discussed which includes the need to study the role of personal epistemology in far transfer as well as a larger investigation of students who transfer broadly across school subjects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, transfer is defined as the personal construction of relations of similarity across activities (Lobato 2003). The definition will be discussed later in greater detail.
Bill’s transfer between the physical and social sciences falls in line with Sokal and Bricmont’s (1998) accusation that social scientists’ too often over-generalize ideas in the physical sciences which they see as a gross misuse of these concepts. Regardless, if Sokal and Bricmont are correct in their assumption that social scientists are incorrectly using ideas generated in the hard sciences, their book provides an excellent example of human’s ability to engage in far transfer as does Bill’s present example.
References
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
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.
Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493–523.
Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for 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 Publishing Company.
Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fortus, D. (2002). A review of the transfer literature (pp. 1–38). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science Society, 7, 155–170.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: WW Norton.
Hakel, M. D., & Halpern, D. F. (2005). How far can transfer go? In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 357–370). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives [working title]. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. From the big bang to black holes. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Hofstadter, D. (1999). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science Society, 13, 295–355.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58.
Krawczyk, D., Holyoak, K., & Hummel, J. (2005). The one-to-one constraint in analogical mapping and inference. Cognitive Science Society, 29, 797–806.
Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.
Markman, A. B. (1997). Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science Society, 21, 373–418.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Perkins, D., & Grotzer, T. A. (1997). Teaching intelligence. American Psychologist, 52, 1125–1133.
Pugh, K. J. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science & Education, 88, 182–196.
Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 147–160.
Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436–450.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.
Schoenfeld, A. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O., & Barker, S. (2003). Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan’s Classification of Academic Disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 347–366.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P., & Coulson, R. (1996). Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurative schemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S51–S61.
Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition & Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was conducted in fulfillment of the practicum requirement for the author’s doctoral program.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsyth, B.R. Beyond physics: A case for far transfer. Instr Sci 40, 515–535 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9188-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9188-z