Question: What do we learn from the debate of whether learning in certain disciplines or in certain contexts could be transferred to other disciplines or contexts successfully?
Vygotsky (1978) introduces two contradictory perspectives on “an old pedagogical problem, that of formal discipline and the problem of transfer” (p. 81). Transfer is a sign of the development of abilities. According to Thorndike, “the development of one particular capability seldom means the development of others” (p. 82). Another perspective is that learning is not constrained to specific skills or habits, but rather is mutually dependent on the general development of ability. Hence, learning on certain subjects can improve the general ability of children, which makes transfer more possible.
Instead of advocating for one of these two perspectives, I insist that they both have advantages and are not mutually exclusive. James (1962) holds a similar position as Thorndike’s about the limitation of transfer. They both argue that learning and development are synonymous. Consequently, learning specific subjects means development on the same subjects. James points out that memories, as a part of faculty, of facts that are new but associated with existing ones can be improved by expanding and strengthening the associated knowledge system for the same type of facts. However, new facts that have little association with the existing system cannot take advantage of expanded memory capabilities. The exception is “special training affects overall development only when its elements, material, and processes are similar across specific domains” (Vygotsky, p. 83). A friend of mine in middle school could recite the periodical table of elements perfectly, but had difficulty determining the position of countries on a map because he had little interests in geography. This example illustrates that the transfer of memory or other abilities does not happen automatically. In addition to the similarities and associations among different subjects, students’ interests and efforts also influence the results of transfer.
Koffka’s (1978) opinion that the circle of development is larger than and embodies the circle of learning is also appealing to me. According to Koffka, the child “while learning a particular operation, acquires the ability to create structures of a certain type” (p. 83), which is a more general process than the specific operation. Math learning would help children to develop logical thinking abilities. In order to answer a geometric proof question, students need to observe the existing graphs, identify the problems, search the related theorem in their knowledge system, and then deduce the question step by step. This procedure is a good way for students to practice reasoning and deduction. Because the use of the thinking abilities from known to unknown concepts is widely practiced, the successful transfer of logical thinking from math problems to physics, chemistry, or other science subjects would be expected.
As we have discussed, the underlying theories of the relationship between learning and development deeply influence educational psychologists’ perspectives about transfer of learning. Vygotsky provides another theory to clarify this phenomenon. Vygotsky states that “the developmental processes lags behind the learning process; this sequence then results in zones of proximal development” (p. 90). Due to controversy in the belief in general abilities, we can hardly reach a consensus about transfer, but it has been shown that transfer could happen at least in related contexts. Based on Vygotsky’s theory, learning promotes the development of abilities in a complex way. As facilitators for learning, teachers need to help students find as much association as possible among different subjects, thereby promoting increased transfer and benefiting the growth of students’ zone of proximal development.
No comments:
Post a Comment