Transfer of Learning and Music Understanding: A Review of Literature

Abstract

Transfer of learning is considered to be a fundamental goal of education, yet it is often assumed or left to chance on the part of the learner. This paradox points to the renewed investment in creating purposeful learning opportunities for students and preparing teachers who are equipped to translate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions into meaningful interactions with students that promote transfer. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the development of transfer of learning over the past 40 years and consider the implications for music education practices. A theoretical overview of transfer of learning is provided, along with a summary of curricular frameworks that are centered around transfer of learning, and a review of select studies from the music education literature that pertain to transfer of learning. The final section offers recommendations for practice and future research.

Keywords

music teacher education psychology of teaching and learning teacher knowledge teaching and learning transfer of learning

For over a century, scholars, educators, and cognitive scientists have examined the notion of transfer of learning (Blythe, 1998; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; DeCorte, 2003; Duke, 2005; Perkins & Salomon, 1992). Learning and cognition are the fundamental building blocks to developing autonomous learners who are able to apply their knowledge to new and different contexts throughout their lives (Brown et al., 1989). Transfer of learning has been considered by many to be a fundamental goal of education and an important aspect of developing music understanding; however, it is often assumed or left to chance on the part of the learner (Duke, 2005; Duke & Pierce, 1991; Madsen, 1988; Peterson & Madsen, 2010; Tunks, 1992). The purpose of this literature review is to examine the development of transfer of learning over the past 40 years and to consider the implications for music education practices. The following sections include (a) a theoretical overview of transfer of learning, (b) the application of transfer frameworks to curricular approaches, and (c) a review of select studies from the music education literature that pertain to transfer of learning. I will conclude by offering recommendations for practice and future research.

Theoretical Overview

Since the early 1950s, cognitive psychologists have examined the process of learning and theorized how humans acquire, transmit, store, retrieve, and transform information (Tunks, 1992). Imbedded in this work is the relationship between the flow of information, human learning, and understanding. Cognitive theorists of transfer and learning have examined the intricate components of human learning and understanding through a range of theoretical constructs. The information-processing theory (Royer, 1979) represented the highly structured nature of human memory, the learner’s ability to relate new information to existing knowledge, and the process of recalling information while making connections between multiple points. Schema theory (Anderson, 1984) emerged from information-processing theory and represented the relationship between how the memory stores and organizes materials, patterns, structures, and how this information is recalled and applied in new contexts. These examinations and theories are inextricably bound and represent the foundation for research on transfer and learning, and the connection to teaching and educational reform.

Transfer of Learning and Education

The role of transfer of learning lies at the center of the teaching and learning enterprise. Perkins and Salomon (1992) defined transfer of learning as the process wherein “ . . . learning in one context or with one set of materials impacts on performances in another context or with related materials” (p. 2). Tunks (1992) underscored the importance of this transfer process in stating, “Our entire educational system, in fact, is based on the premise that what is learned in school will apply in other settings, and that what is learned earlier will have some effect on later learning or performance” (p. 437). This active process of enculturation has honored and built on students’ prior knowledge and has encouraged students to construct their understanding through the careful balance between skill acquisition and knowledge (Blythe, 1998; Bransford et al., 2000; Brown et al., 1989; DeCorte, 2003; Duke & Pierce, 1991; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wiske, 1998). Therefore, transfer of learning has been cited as a fundamental building block in developing autonomous learners who are able to apply their knowledge to new and different contexts throughout their lives (Brown et al., 1989).

Despite the widespread agreement that transfer of learning is a fundamental goal of education, scholars, educators, and cognitive scientists have grappled with how transfer occurs, the factors and infrastructure needed to promote transfer of learning, and the role of the teacher and student in the process (Blythe, 1998; Bransford et al. 2000; DeCorte, 2003; Haskell, 2001; Perkins & Salomon, 1992; Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wiske, 1998). Perkins and Salomon (1992) noted that transfer of learning is often assumed on the part of the learner; however, “no absolute line can be drawn between ordinary learning and transfer” (p. 3). In order to mitigate the divide between traditional learning contexts (school, tests, assignments, tasks) and the context of application (in the home, on the job, in society), the authors (Perkins & Salomon, 1992) advocated that educators strive to create purposeful opportunities to support transfer of learning.

Educational scholars have noted that the practice of teaching and learning is complex work that appears simple (Ball, 2000; Clark & Lampert, 1986; Dewey, 1904/1964). Haskell (2001) highlighted the problem that the cycle of thinking, perceiving and processing information, and transferring knowledge to new contexts is recognized as a fundamental for all learning and yet, this process rarely occurs in the instructional settings. Haskell (2001) noted the importance of teachers using figurative, analogous, metaphorical language, and indicated that all learning is dependent on previous scenarios: “ . . . all learning is transfer of learning” (p. 24). Furthermore, Haskell (2001) stated as follows: “Transfer of learning is thus not only extremely economical in terms of an individual’s learning resources, it creates creativity and learning itself; it helps us to efficiently store, remember, integrate, process, and retrieve information” (p. 34). Haskell indicated teachers must adopt the spiral approach where concepts and skills are constantly revisited, reinforced, and applied in different examples and levels. In addition, Haskell stressed the importance of teaching students how the subject content fits into the larger scheme. The scaffold approach does not progress in a linear fashion; rather, it is a fluid process that constantly refers to previous examples while looking ahead to different examples, contexts, and scenarios. To teach in this manner, Haskell posited that teachers must be proficient in transfer thinking.

The debates surrounding transfer of learning (DeCorte, 2003) can be attributed to what Barnett and Ceci (2002) explicated is “ . . . a failure to specify the various dimensions that may be relevant to determining whether and when transfer occurs” (p. 614). In response, Barnett and Ceci (2002) developed a classification for understanding and evaluating the nature of transfer in learning contexts. Through this taxonomy, the authors suggested ways to unify the definition of transfer and to examine the characteristics of transfer through two broad categories: content and context. In this model, content refers to the learned skill:

. . . it is important to ascertain what the participants learned before attempting to assess whether they could transfer what they learned because transfer performance might be expected to differ depending on whether they learned a specific fact or procedure or general principle. (Barnett & Ceci, 2002, p. 621)

Context refers to knowing when to apply something while considering how much time has elapsed between learning and transfer, the mind-set of the individual, and how the task is performed.

Barnett and Ceci (2002) concluded that utilizing their taxonomy to further understand the highly contextualized nature and multidimensionality of transfer is mandatory, as it provides a process to identify and understand what the underlying elements are that contribute to the transfer of learning. Given the debates, assumptions, and lack of clarity surrounding the range and nature of research surrounding transfer of learning, this taxonomy provided an important foundation for research, as well as practical conclusions and applications related to research on transfer of learning.

Bransford et al. (2000) and DeCorte (2003) indicated that the sociological context is also an important aspect to consider in the development of student understanding. Providing students with problem-solving tasks that are relatable to their everyday lives can enhance the learning process. In doing so, students are encouraged to employ the three levels of knowledge (mastery, conditional, conceptual) while becoming aware of themselves in the process. This metacognitive approach reinforces the cycle of enculturation, honors prior experiences, and encourages critical self-reflection. The teacher’s role as a facilitator who provides reinforcement and support is integral to this process. Bransford et al. (2000) noted, “People often need help in order to use relevant knowledge that they have acquired, and they usually need feedback and reflection so that they can try out and adapt their previously acquired skills and knowledge in new environments” (p. 203). Understanding the powerful role the teacher and the learning environment can play in this process is critical for the development of learning, understanding, and transfer of learning (DeCorte, 2003).

Applications to Teaching and Learning: Curricular Approaches

As with any theoretical framework, it is important to consider the relationship between theory and practice, and the application to teaching and learning. In the case of transfer of learning, relating the philosophical, psychological, and sociological components to student understanding and teaching involves deconstructing how teachers conceive content, deliver instruction, and create learning environments that support transfer of learning across the curriculum.

Teaching for Understanding

In 1998, scholars from Harvard University’s Project Zero group sought to address two questions: (a) What does it mean to understand something? and (b) [What] kinds of curricular, learning experiences, and assessment supports students in developing understanding? (Blythe, 1998). In response, the scholars developed the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework. The initial goal of the TfU framework characterized how teachers support learners in their development of understanding. Wiske (1998) defined the TfU framework as follows: “ . . . [a] framework [that] structures inquiry to help teachers analyze, design, enact, and assess practice focused on the development of students’ understanding” (p. 4). This goal-orientated model for learning emphasizes ideas, processes, and relationships, and promotes understanding through student inquiry. The framework is structured around four key elements: (a) generative topics: prioritizing content that is central to the subject matter and/or relevant to students and teachers; (b) understanding goals: clarifying what the students will come to understand by focusing on fundamental ideas; (c) performances of understanding: engaging students by having them apply, extend, and synthesize what they know; and (d) ongoing assessment: promoting reflection by having students and teachers conduct their assessment (Blythe, 1998). The TfU framework represented an important outgrowth of the theory of learning and transfer as it was a research-based and classroom-tested approach designed to help teachers guide students beyond the mastery of facts to apply knowledge flexibly in unfamiliar contexts (Blythe, 1998).

Understanding by Design

Building on the premise outlined in the TfU framework, the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework was designed to help educators think purposefully about curricular planning, assessment, and school reform. Developed by Wiggins and McTighe in 1999, the authors noted the framework was grounded in the idea that: “Teaching is a means to an end, and planning precedes teaching. The most successful teaching begins, therefore, with clarity about desired learning outcomes and about the evidences that will show that learning has occurred” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 7). This premise speaks to the notion that understanding and transfer of learning are achieved through purposeful curricular design, as opposed to piecing facts and content together with the expectation that learners will connect the dots.

The UbD framework is structured around a three-stage backward curricular design to align curriculum with the desired learning outcomes and foster understanding on the part of the learner. The three stages of the backward design include the following: “(a) Desired results; (b) Evidence; (c) Learning plan” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 18). The goal of the backward design is to help students understand the purpose of the activity and the goal of the task, so they can develop and apply understanding to new contexts. Throughout the framework, the authors noted the connection between transfer of learning and understanding: “The ability to transfer knowledge and skill effectively involves the capacity to take what we know and use it creatively, flexibly, fluently, in different settings or problems, on our own” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 40). This systematic approach to deconstructing content toward a known goal positions learners and their understanding at the center of the teaching and learning experience and promotes transfer of learning.

Ritchhart et al. (2011) extended the fundamental premise of UbD by advocating that the learner must be at the center of the teaching and learning process. In order to support learners, it is important for teachers to share their thought processes so learners are able to experience how they plan, monitor, and challenge their thinking, while fostering learning in others. This concept of modeling to advance student development relates to Haskell’s research (2001) who indicated that in order to create the necessary conditions for transfer of learning, teachers must be proficient in transfer and integrate this approach in all aspects of the classroom experience. The following section will explore select studies from the music education literature that pertain to transfer of learning, the relationship between music thinking in various contexts, and student thinking while engaged in music tasks.

Transfer of Learning in Music Education

Tunks (1992) determined that transfer of learning does not have a prominent place in the body of music education literature, due to the assumption that transfer is automatic. Based on a critical review of literature, Tunks concluded that the majority of research studies in music education and transfer are limited, inconclusive, or the nature of the research is mislabeled as transfer. Tunks asserted that research in music education that deals with transfer is typically focused on key areas including the elements and effect of practice, the application of performance skills, the relationship between music listening skills, and the application of these skills outside of the classroom. Tunks posited that transfer in music learning does not occur through practice alone. This assertion highlights the importance of metacognition and supports Perkins and Salomon’s (1992) contention indicating that transfer is a conscious effort that is dependent on the “extent and efficiency of initial learning” (p. 444). Achieving transfer in music is largely dependent on the nature of instruction and the emphasis on schemata, reflection, motivation, and practice.

Transfer of learning in a music context can take on many forms ranging from, but not limited to, transferring knowledge and skills from one type of ensemble to another; performing a new music genre or style; to composing in a variety of styles and for different ensembles. Duke and Pierce (1991) noted the sophisticated nature of music performance skills and the relationship between perception, cognition, proprioception, and motor behavior in the transfer processes in music settings. In their study, the authors examined the effects of melodic contexts and performance on 27 music majors’ (undergraduate and graduate) ability to perform a previously learned music passage in a novel context. While the authors noted the performance ability of the participants was an important variable to consider with the results from this study, they underscored that formal and informal transfer cannot be assumed in a music learning context regardless of ability level on the part of the student. The authors cautioned,

It is possible, however, that a primary impediment to many students’ successful participation in music making involves a fundamental inability to generalize and apply knowledge and skills across the various situations that are related to the behaviors of music . . . teachers may structure more successful experiences and facilitate greater independence on the part of their students by devoting time and attention on the application of knowledge and skills across a variety of music contexts. (Duke & Pierce, 1991, p. 99)

This statement reinforces Tunks’ (1992) assertion that students’ demonstrated ability to perform a musical task in one context, may not guarantee their ability to seamlessly perform the same task in a new context.

A study by Bononi (2000) examined students’ ability to transfer knowledge in music from the large ensemble context to autonomous music making scenarios. Bononi analyzed the nature of student thinking based on verbal interactions throughout the 16-week study. Overwhelmingly, the participants modeled what they had been taught in the large ensemble context concerning how to navigate their way through the rehearsal process. Students focused largely on error detection in the chamber rehearsals and rarely dealt with music concepts. Bononi (2000) deduced this finding could be a result of “a weakness in initially learning these concepts well enough to explain them or that [the students] simply are not given enough opportunities to explain concepts as part of their ensemble experience” (p. 206). The instances of spontaneous and unprompted transfer occurred less often than anticipated by the researcher. Bononi noted that teacher-centered models of instruction did not allow for adequate development of students’ problem solving skills. These skills are necessary for autonomous decision making in music. Bononi asserted that instructional models must provide students with detailed sequencing that promotes student understanding and capacity to transfer their learning to new contexts.

Strand (2005) examined transfer theories and research on children’s compositional practices in a general music classroom. Using a four-part, reflective spiral, teacher research design, Strand aimed to capture the development of students’ transfer ability. Strand noted that the participants’ success was achieved due to the use of direct instruction and guided discovery techniques. Autonomous learning and high-road transfer were achieved through the supportive environment where mentoring and collaboration occurred. Emergent themes from the findings point to the importance of using a systematic approach involving reflection through each stage of the process. Strand indicated that instruction was modified to meet the needs of the students, and the instructional strategies were made visible to students.

Onward: Implications for Music Education

The review of studies in music education represents scholars who examined different aspects of transfer of learning, with different populations, yet arrived at similar conclusions that address the relationship between the nature of instruction, teacher action, and student understanding. The results from these studies reinforce the notion that in order for transfer to occur, deliberate and systematic instructional strategies are required. Music educators might, therefore, consider instructional approaches that model transfer of learning, including taking a known concept and applying it to another context, providing ample opportunities for students to engage in systematic reflection and application of knowledge to a new context, and creating opportunities for students to solve music problems in small and large groups.

Exploring the connections between cognitive function, skill development, and creativity demands a renewed commitment to understanding how students conceive of music tasks, how students construct knowledge and understanding, and the challenges they face in applying their music understanding to new contexts. An important consideration in this area of scholarship is the individual nature of developing knowledge and understanding with students. This process is constructive and related to students’ sociological understanding and reflective practice. Furthermore, this process is dependent on the teacher’s ability to deconstruct content in a way that is accessible, contextually appropriate, and related to the individual needs of the students and their ongoing development as learners.

Teaching for transfer of learning is dependent on the conditions for learning that are established by the teacher. Creating an environment where students are encouraged to think critically and reflectively demands a deliberate and systematic approach to instruction that is process orientated and rooted in the development of understanding. This learner-centered model involves the dynamic interaction between the teacher and student. Younker (2012) indicated as follows: “Questioning, inquiring, and being curious in communities of learning involves all participants, who are recognized as stakeholders and knowledge bearers, and who construct understanding and meaning through active participation” (p. 169). Fostering transfer of learning in music involves providing opportunities for students to engage in critical thinking and reflective learning as performers, listeners, and creators, through goal-orientated instruction.

Music education researchers have found that teachers’ ability to cultivate their development of understanding in transfer is mandatory in order to model, support, and mentor students (Bononi, 2000; Duke & Pierce, 1991; Strand, 2005). This assertion supports education scholars who have contended that teaching for transfer of learning is dependent on the conditions for learning that are established by teachers (Haskell, 2001; Ritchhart et al., 2011; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Thus, in the case of music teacher education, creating a space for preservice music teachers to develop transfer knowledge may include creating purposeful opportunities across undergraduate coursework where preservice music teachers can apply their knowledge to new contexts. For instance, encouraging preservice music teachers to (a) reflect, identify, and articulate central principles about music skills from their studio lessons or ensemble experiences and apply this knowledge to micro-teaching scenarios in a methods class; (b) denote the relationship between the content in music history courses and music theory courses, and how their understanding of this content might inform how they might approach designing a unit for P–12 music students; and (c) identify their experiences in secondary techniques courses as novices and how their experiences might inform pedagogical approaches in methods courses.

The aforementioned examples are a few ideas of how to provide opportunities for preservice music teachers to connect their knowledge and skills as musicians to their practice as educators through strategic, goal orientated, and reflective learning activities. Ensuring curricular alignment across the degree program is an important area for consideration as it may help preservice teachers make curricular connections and develop a deep understanding of transfer of learning. Younker (2012) noted, “ . . . only then, will our future educators, and hopefully, their students think and act as musicians do, as they construct and understand music experiences in meaningful ways” (p. 178).

Transfer of learning is considered to be a fundamental goal of education, yet it is often assumed or left to chance on the part of the learner. This paradox points to the renewed investment in creating purposeful learning opportunities for students and preparing teachers who are equipped to translate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions into meaningful interactions with students that promote transfer. In order for educators to teach for transfer they must have experience using their knowledge autonomously and be able to solve authentic and appropriate problems in music. Creating dynamic learning environments where learners are challenged to develop understanding and apply their knowledge to new contexts may help reinforce the ultimate goal of education: developing autonomous learners. In the case of music education, the goal of developing autonomous learners reiterates the overarching goal of developing autonomous musicians who are able to engage with music in a wide range of capacities throughout their lives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

R. C.

(1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5–10. doi:10.2307/1174873

Ball

D. L.

(2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241–247. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003013

Barnett

Ceci

(2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612

Blythe

(1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bononi

R. A.

(2000). Student learning in a chamber music ensemble: A study of transfer (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9978964)

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown

J. S.

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.2307/1176008

Clark

Lampert

(1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31. doi:10.1177/002248718603700506

DeCorte

(2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 142–146. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01250

10.

Dewey

(1964). John Dewey on education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. (Original work published 1904).

11.

Duke

R. A.

(2005). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources.

12.

Duke

R. A.

Pierce

(1991). Effects of tempo and context on transfer of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 93–100. doi:10.2307/3344689

13.

Haskell

R. E.

(2001). Transfer of learning, cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

14.

Madsen

C. K.

(1988). Senior Researcher Award acceptance address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 133–139. doi:10.2307/3344635

15.

Perkins

D. N.

Salomon

(1992). Transfer of learning. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb86/245e6623502017940c796c01ed508c3d8208.pdf

16.

Peterson

C. W.

Madsen

C. K.

(2010). Encouraging cognitive connections and creativity in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 97(2), 25–29. doi:10.1177/0027432110386613

17.

Ritchhart

Church

Morrison

(2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

18.

Royer

J. M.

(1979). Theories of the transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 14, 53–69. doi:10.1080/00461527909529207

19.

Strand

(2005). Exploring the relationship between instruction and transfer in 9–12 year-old students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 17–36.

20.

Tunks

T. W.

(1992). The transfer of music learning. In Colwell

(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 437–447). New York, NY: Schirmer.

21.

Wiggins

McTighe

(2005). Understanding by design. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

22.

Wiske

M. S.

(1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Younker

B. A.

(2012). Focusing on critical practice and insights in the music teacher education curriculum. In Beynon

Veblen

(Eds.), Critical perspectives in Canadian music education (pp. 165–180). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfred Laurier Press.