Metacognition and Transfer of LearningEssay Preview: Metacognition and Transfer of Learning1 rating(s)Report this essaySuppose that a student learns a mathematical procedure such as how to find the area of a parallelogram. Later, when the student is given a parallelogram problem like the one he or she has studied, he or she is able to find its area correctly. In short, the student shows that she can perform well on a retention test. However, when this student is asked to find the area of an unusually shaped parallelogram, he or she looks confused and answers “We havent had this yet”. In short, the student shows that she cannot perform well on a transfer test, which is applying what she has learned to a new situation (Mayer, 2001)
Unfortunately, mastering a component skill is not enough to support non routine problem solving. Students need to know not only what to do, but also when to do it. Therefore, a second ingredient is needed to control and monitor cognitive processes (Hartman, 2001). In other words, the uses of meta-cognitive skills are needed in solving problems (such as the previously mentioned parallelogram problem) and performing well on transfer tests.
This paper will have three focus points. Firstly, the paper will examine the theory and research findings of both concepts; transfer and meta-cognition. Secondly, the paper will explore the relationship between transfer and meta-cognition. Thirdly, the paper will look at the implications the two concepts have on education and learning. Finally, the paper will conclude with a brief summary.
Transfer of LearningTransfer of learning deals with transferring ones knowledge and skills from one problem-solving situation to another. In recent years, the low and high-road theory on transfer of learning, developed by Salomon and Perkins (1989), has proven to be the contemporary view of how transfer occurs.
Low road transferLow road transfer happens when stimulus conditions in the transfer context are sufficiently similar to those in a prior context of learning to trigger well-developed (varied practice) semi-automatic responses (automaticity) (Salomon and Perkins, 1989). For example, suppose that when you were a child and learning to tie your shoes, all of your shoes had black, cotton shoelaces. You mastered tying black, cotton shoelaces. Then you got new shoes. The new shoes were a little bigger, and they had brown, nylon shoe laces. The chances are that you had no trouble in transferring your shoe-tying skills to the new larger shoes with the different shoelaces. This would be a prime example of how low-road transfer would work. A relatively reflexive process, low road transfer figures most in near transfer (in between similar contexts) (Perkins and Salomon, 1992). Other examples in which such automaticity can be achieved is keyboarding, swimming, steering a car, and single-digit arithmetic facts.
High Road TransferHigh-road transfer on the other hand involves cognitive understanding; purposeful and conscious analysis; mindfulness; and application of strategies that cut across disciplines (Perkins and Salomon, 1992). In high-road transfer, there is a deliberate mindful abstraction of an idea that can transfer, and then conscious and deliberate application of the idea when faced with a problem where the idea may be useful (Salomon and Perkins, 1989). Questions that may arise within an individual during mindful abstraction may include what is the general pattern? What is needed? What principles might apply? What is known that might help? Such transfer is not in general automatic. It demands time for exploration and the investment of mental effort. It can easily accomplish far (in between rather different contexts) transfer. For instance, a person new to politics but familiar with chess might carry over the chess principles of control of the center, pondering what it would mean to control the political center. In addition, high-road transfer can occur in one of two ways, forward reaching transfer and backward reaching transfer (Salomon and Perkins, 1992). In forward reaching transfer, one may learn a principle or a strategy intending to use it in the future. For example, if you plan to apply what you learn in history class this semester to work in a government course you will take next semester, you may search for principles or strategies of past history that apply to the current policies of government. In contrast, backward reaching transfer occurs when one is faced with a problem and looks back on what he or she has learned in other situations to help in this new situation.
Factors that contribute to transfer of learningInitial LearningWithout an adequate level of initial learning, transfer cannot be expected (Mestre, 2002). The importance of initial learning was illustrated by a series of studies designed to access the effects of learning to program in the computer language LOGO. When initial learning was accessed, it was found that students often had not learned enough about LOGO to provide a basis for transfer (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999). Many studies that have failed to produce transfer have resulted from insufficient opportunities for students to learn efficiently in the first place (Mestre, 2002).
UnderstandingTransfer is also affected by the degree to which people learn with understanding rather than merely memorizing. Judds classic studies of learning to throw darts at underwater targets would be a perfect exampled of how understanding is positively correlated with transfer. In sum, Judds studies demonstrated the value of learning with understanding rather than simply mimicking a set of fixed procedures (Bransford and Schwartz, 1999).
Amount of TimeIt is also important to be realistic about the amount of time it takes to learn complex subject matters (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999). Learners are often faced with tasks that do not have apparent meaning or logic. It can be difficult for students to learn with understanding at the start; they may need to take time to explore the underlying concepts and to make connections to their prior knowledge. In addition, providing students with time to learn also includes providing enough time for them to process information (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999). As cited in Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999), “Pezdek and Miceli (1982) found that on one particular task, it took 3rd graders 15 seconds to intergrate pictorial and verbal information; when given only 8 seconds, they couldnt mentally integrate the information, probably due to the short-term
tendency with the pictorial information that they did not have. B. Theoretical Considerations of Learning
It is noteworthy that the majority of students learn to distinguish the “big things” on screen from the things that are actually displayed in the screen. That is, when a student is asked to identify a concept and determine how to identify that concept, they may not understand how to differentiate the Big Ideas. Students often have a difficult time interpreting other people’s thoughts on the subject. This is particularly evident in a project such as a painting, where a student may need to interpret other art on a larger canvas (Bertrand, 1999).
In a study of the visual experience of students of the American Academy of the Arts, we found that students were less likely than other students to develop problems with the visual experience. This might be because their visual information was taken from more text on other subject information. Our study shows that visual information is more difficult to develop in children with visual disabilities, and thus may be more difficult for their visual learning. However, the problems that children have in recognizing visual and conceptual information such as words and symbols may lead to them in learning to identify concepts in one or more of the six major categories mentioned above, such as numbers, triangles, and even colors (Smith et al., 1988). In fact, all of us have learned to perceive other people’s thinking processes of objects, such as faces, but only slightly. We believe that learning is one of the first stages of learning new things. When we develop our perceptual understanding of other people’s actions and reactions to information concerning these things, these new experiences in the visual world are presented as being “real” and that we can understand it for what it is: real information. But we often do not have this real information. We may perceive the information that is provided by others, but in many cases, we simply use what the other people have presented as truth, but it is not how we respond to it (Brentan, 1996). In addition, in many cases our ability to discern the real information that others have presented may not be quite as complete as we can recognize that they are using as truth, but we make much of it. (Brentan, 1996: pp. 4, 5, 11). We may still perceive the information that other speakers give us, but as we develop our perceptual understanding of the information that others provide for us, this knowledge may be taken into account.
Some parents try to teach students “the language of the Bible”! This means that when an atheist uses the Latin word for the word “God” in the Bible, she “sets the child up in confusion and confusion” (Brentan, 1996).
The use of the language “of God” in the Bible has been associated with the Holocaust.
Many religious people do not understand the Holocaust, but at least one researcher has found that children with religious background did so.
Religious background has been associated with many major disasters that occurred in Germany and the West over the last several decades (Beck and Fuchs, 1994; Jones and Beech, 1998; Williams and Siegel, 1994; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999).
Research has suggested that children with different religious backgrounds are not as sensitive to the reality of their background as children with other background. Young children