Transfer in Real Life

“When am I going to have to use this in real life.”

Almost every teacher has been asked this question at one time or another. Unfortunately, not every teacher has had a good answer. Perhaps, teachers would be less annoyed by the question if they realized that it actually was a valid pedagogical query. “How will this knowledge transfer to my future learning?” On second thought, that probably would not lessen the annoyance.

Teachers of every subject are actually teaching for and hoping that the knowledge they seek to impart will eventually transfer. We hope that the students we have in geometry will go on to utilize that knowledge in trigonometry. We hope that our English comp students will be able to write a coherent office memo in the future. These are implied goals to the curriculum. The more immediate goals (even if they go unwritten) are more direct. I hope this knowledge “transfers” to the test at the end of the week. Or even more importantly, I hope this knowledge transfers to the standardized testing we have to administer in a few months. Of course neither of these are truly ‘transfer objectives’ these are instructional objectives, or at most the application of simple active transfer. (Bransford et al., 2000)

Of course the curricular model most concerned with transfer is Constructivism. To constructivist, meaningful learning is the active creation of knowledge structures from personal experience. (Snowman et al., 2009) I am lucky enough to teach in one of the few fields that whole-heartedly embraces constructivism, technology education. Within the field of technology education we hope to impart “technological literacy” which will allow students to solve unique technological problems in their personal, professional, civic and academic life. (Dugger Jr, 2000)

As you may have expected teaching a constructivist curriculum with the explicit goal of “far transfer”, as per my experience, does not adequately answer the question “When am I going to have to use this in real life,” in the minds of a student. (Snowman et al., 2009)Indeed, I have found that students often resist when presented with a problem-based project that is somewhat open ended in nature. The reasons for this reaction are undoubtedly multi-faceted and differ from school to school and from population to population. Still, it is apparent that it is difficult to teach constructivism in a vacuum. Students who have never been expected to extensively build upon their prior knowledge succeed in school lack the framework to do so. Indeed studies of classroom activity found that only 7 percent of tasks require students to use prior knowledge. (Snowman et al., 2009)

I feel that as educators we have to, at an early age, begin to encourage and build the metacognative skills needed to achieve both low road and high road transfer. Constructivism is not the magic pill; indeed metacognative approaches to instruction often blur the line between traditional learning theories. (Snowman et al., 2009)Technology may help, but I am convinced that the culture of schools must be addressed before any true transformation can occur.

(2000). How people learn : brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed ed.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Dugger Jr, W. E. (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy. Content for the Study of Technology. Technology Teacher, 59(5), 8-13.

Snowman, J., McCown, R. R., & Biehler, R. F. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching (12th ed ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.