Defining Transfer
One of the most prominent debates in transfer research began at its inception with the disagreement over “whether transfer is a suitable guiding metaphor” (Brent 416). Some scholars shun the term transfer because it suggests the mere physical movement from one space to another and oversimplifies the phenomenon. Elizabeth Wardle asserts that this association with “task- and individual-based conceptions” (“Understanding Transfer”) fails to acknowledge the complexity involved in the movement of knowledge and skills. Over the years, scholars have chosen to use alternative terminology to discuss transfer, such as transitions (Moore), integration (Nowacek), generalizations (Beach), expansive learning (Wardle), repurposing (Roozen), transformation (Brent), facilitative transfer (Royer) and boundary crossing (Tuomi-Gron and Engestrom), to name a few. This varying terminology has been borrowed across disciplines and from theories in composition and rhetoric (Moore). The one thing that all of these theories hold in common is the conception of transfer as a more complicated undertaking than the term implies. Beneath the surface, what these scholars are fighting against is the notion that transfer will happen on its own without thought, planning, or effort (Perkins and Salomon 23). While intentions may be similar, the problem with varied terminology is the difficulty of participating in a unified discussion. As such, it is not always clear how scholarship fits together and what gaps remain unexamined.
Varied terminology has, in part, been an attempt to address different aspects of transfer. Rebecca Nowacek contends that transfer is a rhetorical act and uses the term integration as a means of highlighting the differences between unconscious and intentional transfer (11). This is not surprising considering Nowacek’s emphasis on the student as an agent in learning. Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom prefer “boundary crossing” since it effectively emphasizes the activity systems by which knowledge must be transformed rather than simply transferred (28-29). King Beach uses generalization and transition to emphasize the active constructions involved in social organizations (40-41). His theory relies on the identification of “consequential transitions” which Beach claims can be lateral, collateral, encompassing, or meditational (42-43). According to Beach, a transition becomes consequential “when it is consciously reflected on, struggled with, and shifts the individual’s sense of social position” (Beach 42). Similarly, Adler-Kassner, Majewski, and Koshnick believe that “troublesome knowledge” is knowledge which challenges a person’s beliefs and actions, ultimately forcing the learner to question their conceptions of the world. This knowledge becomes troublesome because it troubles the learner by making them question everything they know and experience uncomfortable uncertainty. What these varied terms expose is the understanding that transfer is not simple, but instead is highly complex and at times can be an uncomfortable transformation. While these terms developed as a means to provide emphasis on different aspects of transfer, they also exist as attempts to describe an underlying process of functioning in the brain; one which I believe a physiological explanation of memory can uncover greater understanding of how transfer works.
Varied terminology has, in part, been an attempt to address different aspects of transfer. Rebecca Nowacek contends that transfer is a rhetorical act and uses the term integration as a means of highlighting the differences between unconscious and intentional transfer (11). This is not surprising considering Nowacek’s emphasis on the student as an agent in learning. Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom prefer “boundary crossing” since it effectively emphasizes the activity systems by which knowledge must be transformed rather than simply transferred (28-29). King Beach uses generalization and transition to emphasize the active constructions involved in social organizations (40-41). His theory relies on the identification of “consequential transitions” which Beach claims can be lateral, collateral, encompassing, or meditational (42-43). According to Beach, a transition becomes consequential “when it is consciously reflected on, struggled with, and shifts the individual’s sense of social position” (Beach 42). Similarly, Adler-Kassner, Majewski, and Koshnick believe that “troublesome knowledge” is knowledge which challenges a person’s beliefs and actions, ultimately forcing the learner to question their conceptions of the world. This knowledge becomes troublesome because it troubles the learner by making them question everything they know and experience uncomfortable uncertainty. What these varied terms expose is the understanding that transfer is not simple, but instead is highly complex and at times can be an uncomfortable transformation. While these terms developed as a means to provide emphasis on different aspects of transfer, they also exist as attempts to describe an underlying process of functioning in the brain; one which I believe a physiological explanation of memory can uncover greater understanding of how transfer works.