Table Of ContentThe Transfer of
Cognitive Skill
Mark K. Singley
John R. Anderson
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England
1989
OESTERLE LIBRARY, NCC
NAPERVILLE, IL. 60566
Copyright © 1989 by the President and
Fellows of Harvard College
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
1098 765 43 2 «1
This book is printed on acid-free paper, and
its binding materials have been chosen for
strength and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Singley, Mark K.
The transfer of cognitive skill.
(Cognitive science series: 9)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Transfer of training—Case studies. J. Anderson,
John R. John Robert), 1947- . IL. Title.
III. Series.
LB1059.5523 1989 370.15 88-28404
ISBN 0-674-90340-4 (alk. paper)
Cognitive Science Series, 9
Cognitive Science Series
. Frank C. Keil, Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological
Perspective
. Edwin Hutchins, Culture and Inference: A Trobriand Case Study
William E. Cooper and Jeanne Paccia-Cooper, Syntax and Speech
. Edward E. Smith and Douglas L. Medin, Categories and Concepts
. John R. Anderson, The Architecture of Cognition
. P. N. Johnson-Laird, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of
Language, Inference, and Consciousness
Steven Pinker, Language Learnability and Language Development
MN
Barbara Landau and Lila R. Gleitman, Language and Experience: Evi-
dence from the Blind Child
. Mark K. Singley and John R. Anderson, The Transfer of Cognitive Skill
To our wives,
Arlene and Lynne,
and our parents,
Dorcas and Luther, and Adeline and John
Preface
hen Singley first came to Carnegie-Mellon in 1982 to study
with Anderson, the ACT* theory of skill acquisition was
in its final stages of development and the time was ripe for
application. What better domain than transfer to test a learning
theory, we thought. By taking this approach, we were following
a long tradition in which the question ‘What is learned?’ is
answered by tests of transfer. We looked first at transfer in text
editing and then at transfer in calculus. This book presents the
results of that research as well as numerous other theoretical
and empirical analyses that are relevant to transfer.
As we began to reflect on our work, it became apparent that
we were proposing something analogous to Thorndike’s iden-
tical elements theory of the transfer process. In short, we as-
sumed that transfer was based on those elements that are shared
between tasks. In any identical elements theory, the critical
question is how to define the elements. Using the ACT” theory
as a starting point, we identified production rules as the ele-
ments of skill and thus as the basis for transfer. We found
production rules well cast in this role by virtue of certain useful
properties, notably their independence and abstractness. The
theory we present here can be viewed as a resurrection of
Thorndike’s theory of identical elements, with production rules
and their declarative precursors taking on the role of the ele-
ments.
With regard to Thorndike, it is possible to ask whether his
theoretical glass is half full or half empty. In writing this book,
we chose to stress the former (perhaps to get the reader’s blood
Vili Preface
pumping), casting our theory as a modernization of his. We
could just as easily have stressed the many differences between
his theory and our own. In fact, our work represents something
of a resolution to a conflict that has raged since Thorndike’s day
concerning the specificity of transfer. Thorndike proposed an
identical elements theory, but because of his lack of a mental
representation language, his elements were superficial and tied
to overt behavior. In short, Thorndike’s elements made no pro-
vision for transfer at an abstract level. With production rules,
however, transfer can be localized to specific components (in
keeping with Thorndike’s theory) and yet still be quite abstract
and mentalistic.
We thank the many people who have shared in both the
conceptual and the physical preparation of this book. Many of
the ideas presented here had their first expression in meetings
of the ACT* research group, which has included Frank Boyle,
Gary Bradshaw, Fred Conrad, Al Corbett, Rob Farrell, Wayne
Gray, Robin Jeffries, Bonnie John, Irv Katz, Claudius Kessler,
Ken Koedinger, Matthew Lewis, Jean McKendree, Bob Milson,
Peter Pirolli, Lynne Reder, Brian Reiser, Jeff Shrager, and Ross
Thompson. Special thanks go to Claudius Kessler and Matthew
Lewis, who participated significantly in the research effort and
whose work is reported here in some detail. Peter Pirolli and
Peter Polson read the entire manuscript and made many insight-
ful suggestions regarding content and organization. Kelley
George ably managed the physical preparation of the manu-
script, including figures and tables. Mari-Jo Dagostino and Judy
Rosa provided timely proofreading assistance. At Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Michael Aronson encouraged our efforts and
helped us define the direction and scope of the work; Virginia
LaPlante provided a skillful polishing. Finally, we are grateful
for the generous support we received for this work from the
Army Research Institute and the Air Force Human Resources
Laboratory, Contract MDA903-85-K-0343.
Contents
1/ The Study of Transfer 1
2/ Transfer in the ACT* Theory 42
3/ Lateral Transfer 68
4/ Negative Transfer 114
5/ Use Specificity of Procedural Knowledge 138
6/ Simulating Analogical Transfer 163
7/ Declarative Transfer 197
8/ The Theory in Review 222
9/ Representation and Transfer 248
References 277
Index 293
