TRANSFER OF TRAINING
Formal discipline or transfer of training
concerns itself with the question as to how far training
in one subject, along one line, influences other lines.
How far, for instance, training in reasoning in mathematics
helps a child to reason in history, in morals, in household
administration; how far memorizing gems of poetry or
dates in history aids memory when it is applied to
learning stenography or botany; how far giving attention
to the gymnasium will insure attention to sermons
and one’s social engagements. The question
is, How far does the special training one gets in
home and school fit him to react to the environment
of life with its new and complex situations? Put
in another way, the question is what effect upon other
bonds does forming this particular situation response
series of bonds have. The practical import of
the question and its answer is tremendous. Most
of our present school system, both in subject matter
and method, is built upon the assumption that one
answer is correct if it is false, much work
remains to be done by the present-day education.
The point of view which was held until
recent years is best made clear by a series of quotations.
“Since the mind is a unit and
the faculties are simply phases or manifestations
of its activity, whatever strengthens one faculty
indirectly strengthens all the others. The verbal
memory seems to be an exception to this statement,
however, for it may be abnormally cultivated
without involving to any profitable extent the
other faculties. But only things that are
rightly perceived and rightly understood can be rightly remembered.
Hence whatever develops the acquisitive and assimilative powers will also
strengthen memory; and, conversely, rightly strengthening the memory
necessitates the developing and training of the other powers.
It is as a means of training the faculties of perception and
generalization that the study of such a language as Latin in comparison with
English is so valuable.
Arithmetic, if judiciously taught, forms in the pupil habits of
mental attention, argumentative sequence, absolute accuracy, and
satisfaction in truth as a result, that do not seem to spring equally from
the study of any other subject suitable to this elementary stage of
instruction.
By means of experimental and observational work in science, not
only will his attention be excited, the power of observation, previously
awakened, much strengthened, and the senses exercised and disciplined, but
the very important habit of doing homage to the authority of facts rather
than to the authority of men, be initiated.
The view maintained by these writers
is that the mind is made up of certain elemental powers
such as attention, reasoning, observation, imagination,
and the like, each of which acts as a unit. Training
any one of these powers means simply its exercise
irrespective of the material used. The facility
gained through this exercise may then be transferred
to other subjects or situations, which are quite different.
The present point of view with regard to this question
is very different, as is shown by the following quotations:
We may conclude, then, that there is something which may be called
formal discipline, and that it may be more or less general in character. It
consists in the establishment of habitual reactions that correspond to the
form of situations. These reactions foster adjustments, attitudes, and
ideas that favor the successful dealing with the emergencies that arouse
them. On the other hand, both the form that we can learn to deal with more
effectively, and the reactions that we associate with it, are definite.
There is no general training of the powers or faculties, so far as we can
determine.
“One mental function or activity
improves others in so far as and because they
are in part identical with it, because it contains
elements common to them. Addition improves multiplication
because multiplication is largely addition; knowledge
of Latin gives increased ability to learn French because
many of the facts learned in the one case are needed
in the other. The study of geometry may lead
a pupil to be more logical in all respects, for
one element of being logical in all respects
is to realize that facts can be absolutely proven
and to admire and desire this certain and unquestionable
sort of demonstration....”
Mental discipline is the most important thing in education, but it
is specific, not general. The ability developed by means of one subject can
be transferred to another subject only in so far as the latter has elements
in common with the former. Abilities should be developed in school only by
means of those elements of subject-matter and of method that are common to
the most valuable phases of the outside environment. In the high school
there should also be an effort to work out general concepts of method from
the specific methods used.
... No study should have a place in the curriculum for which this
general disciplinary characteristic is the chief recommendation. Such
advantage can probably be gotten in some degree from every study, and the
intrinsic values of each study afford at present a far safer criterion of
educational work than any which we can derive from the theory of formal
discipline.
These writers also believe in transfer
of training, but they believe the transfer to be never
complete, to be in general a very small percentage
of the special improvement gained and at times to be
negative and to interfere with responses in other
fields instead of being a help. They also emphasize
the belief that when the transfer does occur, it is
for some perfectly valid reason and under certain
very definite conditions. They reject utterly
the machine-like idea of the mind and its elemental
faculties held by the writers first quoted. They
hold the view of mental activity which has been emphasized
in the discussion of original tendencies and inheritance
from near ancestry, i.e., that the physical
correlate of all types of mental activity is a definite
forming of connections between particular bonds-these
connections, of course, according to the laws of readiness
exercise, and effect, would be determined by the situation
acting as a stimulus and would, therefore, vary as
the total situation varied. They believe in a
highly specialized human brain, which reacts in small
groups of nerve tracts not in gross wholes.
They would express each of the “elemental”
powers in the plural and not in the singular.
The basis of this change of view within
the last fifteen or twenty years is to be found in
experimental work. The question has definitely
been put to the test as to how far training in one
line did influence others. For a full description
of the various types of experiments performed the
reader is referred to Thorndike’s “Psychology
of Learning,” Chapter 12. Only an indication
of the type of work done and the general character
of the results can be given here. Experiments
in the effect of cross education, in memorizing, in
observing and judging sensory and perceptual data,
and in forming sensori-motor association habits
have been conducted in considerable numbers.
A few experiments in special school functions have
also been carried out. Investigations in the
correlation between various parts of the same subject
and between different subjects supposed to be closely
allied also throw light upon this subject. The
results from these different lines of experiment,
although confusing and sometimes contradictory, seem
to warrant the belief stated above. They have
made it very clear that the question of transfer is
not a simple one, but, on the contrary, that it is
extremely complex. They make plain that in some
cases where large transfer was confidently expected,
that little resulted, while, on the other hand, in
some cases when little was expected, much more occurred.
It is evident that the old idea of a large transfer
in some subtle and unexplained way of special improvements
to a general faculty is false. But, on the other
hand, it would be equally false to say that no transfer
occurred. The general principle seems to be that
transfer occurs when the same bonds are used in the
second situation to the extent that the alteration
in these particular connections affects the second
response. Both the knowledge of what bonds are
used in various responses and to what extent alteration
in them will affect different total responses is lacking.
Therefore, all that is at present possible is a statement
of conditions under which transfer is probable.
In general, then, transfer of training
will occur to the extent that the two responses use
the same bonds to the extent, then, that
there is identity of some sort. This identity
which makes transfer possible may be of all degrees
of generality and of several different types.
First, there may be identity of content. For
instance, forming useful connections with six, island,
and, red, habit, Africa, square root, triangle, gender,
percentage, and so on, in this or that particular
context should be of use in other contexts and therefore
allow of transfer of training. The more common
the particular responses are to all sorts of life
situations, the greater the possibility of transfer.
Second, the identity may be that of method or procedure.
To be able to add, to carry, to know the method of
classifying an unknown flower, to have a definite
method of meeting a new situation in hand-work, to
know how to use source material in history, to have
gained the technique of laboratory skill in chemistry,
to know how to study in geography, should be useful
in other departments where the same method would serve.
Some of these methods are, of course, of much more
general service than others. In establishing
skill in the use of these various procedures, two
types of responses are needed. The learner must
form connections of a positive nature, such as analyzing,
collecting material, criticizing according to standard,
picking out the essential and so on, and he must also
form connections of a negative character which will
cause him to neglect certain tendencies. He must
learn not to accept the first idea offered, to neglect
suggestions, to hurry or to leave half finished, to
ignore interruptions, to prevent personal bias to influence
criticism, and so on. These connections which
result in neglecting certain elements are quite as
important as the positive element, both in the production
of the particular procedure and in the transfer to
other fields. Third, the identity may be of still
more general character and be in terms of attitude
or ideal. To learn to be thorough in connection
with history, accurate in handwork, open-minded in
science, persistent in Latin, critical in geometry,
thorough in class and school activities; to form habits
of allegiance to ideals of truth, cooeperation, fair
play, tolerance, courage, and so on, may help
the learner to exhibit these same attitudes in other
situations in life. Here again the connections
of neglect are important. To neglect selfish suggestions,
to ignore the escape from consequences that falsehood
might make possible, to be dead to fear, to ignore
bodily aches and pains, are quite as necessary in
producing conduct that is generous, truthful, and courageous
as are the positive connections made in building up
the ideal.
In the discussion of transfer because
of identity, it was emphasised that the presence of
identity of various types explained cases of transfer
that exist and made transfer possible. In no case
must it be understood, however, that the presence
of these identical elements is a warrant of transfer.
Transfer may take place under such conditions,
but it need not do so. Transfer is most sure to
occur in cases of identity of substance and least
likely in cases of identity of attitude or ideals.
To have useful responses to six, above, city, quart,
and so on, in one situation will very likely mean
responses of a useful nature in almost all situations
which have such elements present. It is very
different with the ideals. A child may be very
accurate in handwork, and yet almost nothing of it
show elsewhere; he may be truthful to his teacher
and lie to his parents; he may be generous to his classmates
and the reverse to his brothers and sisters.
Persistence in Latin may not influence his work in
the shop, and the critical attitude of geometry be
lacking in his science. Transfer in methods holds
a middle ground. It seems that the more complex
and the more subtle the connections involved, the
less is the amount and the surety of the transfer.
In order to increase the probability
of transfer when connections of method or attitudes
are being formed, first, it should be made conscious,
and second, it should be put into practice in several
types of situations. There is grave danger that
the method will not be differentiated from the subject,
the ideal from the context of the situation.
To many children learning how to study in connection
with history, or to be critical in geometry, or to
be scientific in the laboratory, has never been separated
from the particular situation. The method or
the ideal and the situation in which they have been
acquired are one one response. The
general elements of method or attitude have never
been made conscious, they are submerged in the particular
subject or situation, and therefore the probability
of transfer is lessened. If, on the other hand,
the question of method, as an idea by itself, apart
from any particular subject, is brought to the child’s
attention; if truth as an ideal, independent of context,
is made conscious, it is much more likely to be reacted
to in a different situation, for it has become a free
idea and therefore crystallized. Then having freed
the general somewhat from its particular setting,
the learner should be given opportunity to put it
in practice in other settings. To simply form
the method connections or the attitude responses in
Latin and then blindly trust that they will be of
general use is unsafe. It is the business of
the educator to make as sure as he can of the transfer,
and that can only be done by practicing in several
fields. These two procedures which make transfer
more sure, i.e., making the element conscious
and giving practice in several fields, are not sharply
divided, but interact. Practice makes the idea
clearer and freer, and this in turn makes fresh practice
profitable. It is simply the application of the
law of analysis by varying concomitants.
In all this matter of transfer it
must be borne in mind that a very slight amount of
transfer of some of these more general responses may
be of tremendous value educationally, provided it
is over a very wide field. If a boy’s study
of high school science made him at all more scientific
in his attitude towards such life situations as politics,
morals, city sanitation, and the like, it would be
of much more value than the particular habit formed.
If a girl’s work in home economics resulted
in but a slight transfer of vital interest to the actual
problems of home-making, it would mean much to the
homes of America. If a boy’s training in
connection with the athletics of his school fosters
in him an ideal of fair play which influences him at
all in his dealings with men in business, with his
family, with himself, the training would have been
worth while. To discount training simply because
the transfer is slight is manifestly unfair.
The kind of responses which transfer are quite as
important as the amount of the transfer.
The idea that every subject will furnish
the same amount of discipline provided they are equally
well taught is evidently false. Every school
subject must now be weighed from two points of view, first,
as to the worth of the particular facts, responses,
habits, which it forms, and second, as to the opportunity
it offers for the formation of connections which are
of general application. The training which educators
are sure of is the particular training offered by
the subject; the general training is more problematic.
Hence no subject should be retained in our present
curriculum whose only value is a claim to disciplinary
training. Such general training as the subject
affords could probably be gained from some other subject
whose content is also valuable. Just because a
subject is difficult, or is distasteful, is no sign
that its pursuit will result in disciplinary training.
In fact, the psychology of play and drudgery make
it apparent that the presence of annoyance, of distaste,
will lessen the disciplinary value. Only those
subjects and activities which are characterized by
the play spirit can offer true educational development.
The more the play spirit enters in, the greater the
possibility of securing not only special training,
but general discipline as well. Thorndike sums
up the present attitude towards special subjects by
saying, “An impartial inventory of the facts
in the ordinary pupil of ten to eighteen would find
the general training from English composition greater
than that from formal logic, the training from physics
and chemistry greater than that from geometry, and
the training from a year’s study of the laws
and institutions of the Romans greater than that from
equal study of their language. The grammatical
studies which have been considered the chief depositories
of disciplinary magic would be found in general inferior
to scientific treatments of human nature as a whole.
The superiority for discipline of pure overapplied
science would be referred in large measure to the fact
that pure science could be so widely applied.
The disciplinary value of geometry would appear to
be due, not to the simplicity of its conditions, but
to the rigor of its proofs; the greatest disciplinary
value of Latin would appear in the case, not of those
who disliked it and found it hard, but of those to
whom it was a charming game.”
QUESTIONS
1. It has been experimentally
determined that the ease with which one memorizes
one set of facts may be very greatly improved without
a corresponding improvement in ability to memorize
in some other field. How would you use this fact
to refute the argument that we possess a general faculty
of memory?
2. How is it possible for a man
to reason accurately in the field of engineering and
yet make very grave mistakes in his reasoning about
government or education?
3. What assurance have we that
skill or capacity for successful work developed in
one situation will be transferred to another situation
involving the same mental processes of habit formation,
reasoning, imagination, and the like?
4. What are the different types
of identity which make possible transfer of training?
5. How can we make the identity
of methods of work most significant for transfer of
training and for the education of the individual?
6. Why do ideals which seem to
control in one situation fail to affect other activities
in which the same ideal is called for?
7. Under what conditions may
a very slight amount of transfer of training become
of the very greatest importance for education?
8. Why may we not hope for the
largest results in training by compelling children
to study that which is distasteful? Do children
(or adults) work hardest when they are forced to attend
to that from which they derive little or no satisfaction?
9. Which student gets the most
significant training from his algebra, the boy who
enjoys work in this field or the boy who worries through
it because algebra is required for graduation from
the high school?
10. Why may we hope to secure
more significant training in junior high schools which
offer a great variety of courses than was accomplished
by the seventh and eighth grades in which all pupils
were compelled to study the same subjects?
11. Why is Latin a good subject
from the standpoint of training for one student and
a very poor subject with which to seek to educate another
student?