A three-attribute transfer skills framework – part I: establishing the model and its relation to chemical education

Abstract

This paper presents Part I of a two-part study. This first part reviews the literature of transfer of learning as one of the major goals of instruction. Transfer refers to students' ability to apply knowledge and skills in new learning contexts. The literature suggests partially or non-overlapping definitions, and empirical studies on transfer often lack sufficient theoretical background. The goal of this first study is twofold: (a) narrowing the gap between theoretical and empirical aspects of transfer skills, and (b) designing a theoretically-founded transfer framework that can be applied to research and practice in education. The framework was then investigated in the field of chemical education and will be further discussed in Part II. A comprehensive literature search resulted in 664 papers being identified for review. Papers in which transfer was a secondary issue were filtered out. Afterwards, we formulated a theoretical transfer framework that distinguishes between near and far transfer. The framework consists of three attributes: task distance, interdisciplinarity, and skills set. Our study contributes to the body of literature of transfer at several levels. At the theoretical level, we have pointed out commonalities and differences between the various current transfer definitions and proposed a three-attribute transfer framework. Part two will focus on the empirical-application level, showing the interplay between specific learning environments and their effect on students' transfer skills with emphasis on chemical education. These contributions help narrow gaps between the theory of transfer and empirical research.

---

Introduction

This paper presents Part I of a two-part study. This first part reviews the literature on transfer of learning as one of the major goals of instruction (Lee, 1980). Transfer refers to students’ ability to recall knowledge and skills and to apply them in new learning situations (Salomon and Globerson, 1987; Detterman, 1993). Knowledge and skills that are learned in class might be tested in future, unknown contexts, for which assessments cannot be designed beforehand. Research indicates that too often students fail to apply knowledge and skills acquired in previous learning settings. This shows that transfer is problematic (Bassok and Hoyyoak, 1993).

The literature on transfer skills suggests a number of partially or non-overlapping definitions, and empirical research articles on transfer often lack sufficient theoretical background regarding transfer issues and transfer assessment methods.

The goal of this study is twofold: (a) narrowing the gap between theoretical and empirical aspects of transfer skills, and (b) designing a theoretically-founded transfer framework that can be applied to research and practice in education. The review was carried out in four stages. First, we conducted a comprehensive literature search. Secondly, we classified the remaining articles by type: research, position, theory, review and critique and transfer as a secondary issue. The secondary ones were filtered out later since the authors of these papers mentioned the topic or the concept of transfer neither as the main goal of their study nor contributed to the body of knowledge of transfer, neither theoretically nor empirically. In the third stage, we summarized definitions of transfer, learning environments and transfer attributes. In the fourth stage, we formulated a theoretical framework for transfer based on three attributes: task distance, interdisciplinarity, and skill set. Finally, based on the framework we designed, we presented a case-based chemistry approach and suggested a method to differentiate between near and far transfer skills in designing assignments for chemistry majors. This approach will be further applied, investigated, and discussed in Part II. The potential value of the proposed transfer framework to researchers and practitioners in the education community is raised in the discussion sections of both parts.

Theoretical background and literature search

Transfer, as defined by some researchers, is the degree to which behavior will be repeated in a new learning situation (Gagne, 1975; Perkins and Salomon, 1988; Detterman, 1993; De Corte, 2003). Others define transfer as the effect of knowledge learned in a previous situation/task on learning or performance in a new situation/task (Mayer and Whitrock, 1996). According to Beach (1999), when discussing the definition, an important distinction needs to be made between transfer and just plain learning, especially if we wish to understand learning continuity and transformation across multiple tasks and situations.

Going back as far as the foundation of the first universities, Latin and Greek were taught as means to train students’ minds and to develop their learning skills (Perkins and Salomon, 1988). A modern variation of this philosophical approach to education suggests that transfer occurs when teachers explicitly teach transfer (Judd, 1908; Detterman, 1993; Marton, 2006). However, many educators and teachers believe that even without explicit teaching, students can transfer thinking skills to other learning situations. According to Ausubel et al. (1978), meaningful learning necessarily involves transfer. Transferable skills include written and oral communications, self-organization, study, teamwork and problem-solving skills. These skills can be learned in one context (Zimrot and Ashkenazi, 2007), be applied in other contexts, and form the bridge between knowledge and practice (Race, 1998). Implementation of knowledge in nearly identical situations is usually not considered as transfer, although contradictory opinions may be found. While Thorndike (1901, 1913) claimed that transfer from one task to another depends on clear similarity between the two, Marton (2006) emphasized the importance of different features between two learning situations with respect to transfer. Rather than defining transfer as the ability to apply similar knowledge in different yet similar situations, Marton claimed that transfer cannot take place without first identifying differences between the initial and new learning situations. Although transfer seems to be one of the important educational goals, researchers have found that students often fail to apply knowledge and skills they have previously acquired in new contexts (Perkins and Salomon, 1988; De Corte, 2003). One explanation for the difficulty students face in transferring, suggested by Perkins and Salomon (1989, 1992), is that knowledge and skills tend to be specific rather than general. Salomon and Globerson (1987) claimed that there is a gap between what learners can potentially achieve by applying the skills, strategies, and knowledge they acquired, and their actual performance. They argued that learning in general, and the learning of transfer in particular, can be improved when mindfulness is evoked. According to Eraut (2004), educational programs claim to provide several knowledge aspects including theoretical knowledge, methodological knowledge, practical skills and techniques, generic skills, and general knowledge about occupations. He claimed that although these types of knowledge are described as transferable, there is little evidence of the extent to which they are acquired by students and of the chances of them being transferred in a workplace.

Barnett and Ceci (2002) suggested taxonomy of transfer that might contribute to studies’ organization, explanation, and discussion. They claimed that disagreement on transfer is due to lack of structure in transfer discussions and failure to clearly define factors for determining whether and when transfer occurs. Therefore, they suggested taxonomy based on content and context factors (see the additional description in the sequel).

Literature search for relevant resources on transfer

This review is aimed at providing researchers and educators with a comprehensive guide to the definitions, debates and practices of transfer and transfer skills in science teaching. We used what we call ‘the funnel-method’ – going from the general term to increasingly more specific terms: starting with the broad concept of ‘transfer’, we gradually refined and constrained it to a narrower concept of ‘transfer skill’, and then moved to ‘far transfer’. Our review excluded papers in which transfer was a secondary issue and we focused on papers that presented and studied transfer in the context of education in general and science education in particular. We selected these words in order to reduce the number of papers and to find the most relevant articles for our purpose. Mostly, the key words were ‘transfer’ and ‘transfer skill’ and in cases where the number of retrieved papers was still huge we searched for the key words ‘far transfer’.

We started our review on transfer skills using several search engines: (1) Eric – an education-specific repository, (2) Google Scholar – a search engine for academia, and (3) central repository sites of scientific refereed journals, such as: RSC Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley InterScience databases; the Journal of the Learning Sciences, the Learning and Instruction journal, Educational Research Review journal, and Chemistry Education Research and Practice. The sites were last accessed in July 2010. The first search engine – ERIC – is commonly used for searching educational research papers while the second one – Google Scholar – is a highly reputable search engine (by topics or authors) for scientific papers in general. We also made use of ongoing research by the authors, which is concerned with analysing and evaluating transfer skills in chemistry at the secondary level (Sasson and Dori, 2006, 2012). Finally, we also searched specific journal sites and we picked specific journals that appeared to have had papers that dealt with transfer (based on what we found via searching in ERIC or Google Scholar).

(1) Our search in Eric, using the word ‘transfer’, retrieved 30 849 articles and books. When searching for ‘transfer skill’ we found 1489 articles. The search combining ‘transfer skill’ and ‘far’ yielded only one paper (Strand-Cary and Klahr, 2008). Later on we searched with the combination of ‘transfer skill’ and ‘education’, and limited the search to journals from 1980 onward. This search retrieved 255 articles.

(2) A search for the keyword ‘transfer’ in Google Scholar at the same time period yielded 3 900 000 articles and books. Searching for the term ‘transfer skill’ in abstracts since 1991 we found 203 000 articles. When further specifying the search to only social studies databases we managed to narrow down the search to 199 articles.

(3) Our search in journal databases, such as RSC Publishing, Taylor & Francis and Wiley InterScience databases, included three stages. First we used the keyword ‘transfer’ in all journals’ subjects. This search retrieved 52 573 results. Scanning the results, three relevant subjects emerged: computer science, education, and psychology. Searching the keyword ‘transfer’ in education and psychology journals resulted in 1221 articles. These articles included a wide range of aspects such as behavior, intelligence tests, transfer of medical substances in psychiatry, transfer from vocational schools to workplaces, and transfer to and within higher education with one example in chemical education (Zimrot and Ashkenazi, 2007). We then reduced the search to educational journals only, searching for the term ‘transfer skill’. In some cases, the search results were narrowed by searching for the term ‘far transfer’. We retrieved 129 articles for ‘transfer skill’ and 18 articles for ‘far transfer’. Since three articles were duplicates and an additional one was not in English, we ended up with 143 articles. Searching the term ‘transfer skills’ in Educational Research Review journal, we found 27 papers. In 25 papers transfer was mentioned as a secondary issue. Two of the papers included the term either as a keyword (see the review by Tigchelaar et al., 2010, in the sequel) or as a recommendation. We then searched in specific journals: the Journal of the Learning Sciences, the Learning and Instruction journal, the Review of Educational Research journal, and Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Overall, we found five reviews with the keyword ‘transfer’. One review by Smagorinsky and Smith (1992) described issues related to transfer with a focus on the nature of knowledge while another one discussed how we can “move beyond the transfer metaphor in understanding how we experience continuity and transformation in becoming someone or something new” (Beach, 1999, p. 102). In a third review by Tigchelaar et al. (2010), the authors used the term ‘transfer’ for two purposes: (a) “adult learners that are making the transfer into teaching” (p. 165), and (b) “transfer of previous experiences from another professional domain” (p. 167). For the purpose of this review the latter is more suitable. Transfer of experiences obtained in former professional contexts was briefly discussed by Tigchelaar et al. (2010), since their review mainly focused on second-career teachers. Two other reviews contained the ‘transfer’ only in their recommendations. In addition, we found four papers published by the Journal of the Learning Sciences (Engel, 2006; Greeno, 2006; Lobato, 2006; Marton, 2006), nine papers published in the last decade in the Learning and Instruction journal and only one paper in Chemistry Education Research and Practice. The more updated papers presented empirical research on transfer. We also added four books and 20 papers that were intensively cited in the main papers we had found in the electronic search. Overall, we located a total of 664 articles.

The topics and abstracts of these 664 papers were content analyzed by three educational research experts for establishing research trustworthiness via investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1978; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). This process took almost two years between 2008 and 2010. During this period, we refined and improved the transfer framework based on an ongoing dialogue among the raters. The inter-raters consent was 90%. This analysis revealed the types of articles and the attributes of the transfer assignments. Each abstract was analyzed and classified by the three raters for its type: empirical research, theory, position, review and critique, or papers in which the transfer topic did not include relevant theoretical background or an applicable study with transfer as the main focus. Classification by type was done by two academic researchers, achieving 90% inter-rater reliability. Table 1 presents the distribution of these articles by type and lists key articles in each type.

Table 1 Distribution of peer-reviewed articles by type, N = 664 articles^a

Article type	Frequency (%)	Examples
a The list of references includes only articles cited in this paper.
Empirical research	16	• King-Johnson (1992) investigated the effects of acquisition of a problem-solving model on the ability to transfer to analogous problems in different domains.
		• Lawson et al. (2000) investigated the effect of hypothesis-testing skills on transfer of learning.
		• Mayer et al. (1999) investigated an informal educational environment of an after-school computer club. They found that this environment can foster problem-solving skills in general and can later be transferred to learning in a formal school environment in particular.
		• Rourke and Sweller (2009) gave students a lecture followed by a tutorial, students were then required to learn to identify characteristics of designer’s work either by studying worked examples or by completing problem-solving tasks.
Position	5	• McAvinia and Oliver (2002) considered the need to develop skills in lifelong learning within a discipline-specific setting.
		• James (2000) explored issues of skill development and assessment in higher education. He raised the question whether transferable skills should be taught and assessed as a separate module.
		• Parry (1990) described personal, instructional and organizational factors which may foster or hinder transfer of learning.
Theory	5	• Engel (2006) presented a theoretical framework for a situated approach to explaining transfer.
		• Motterchead and Suggitt (1996) defined transferable skills as skills of widely applicable nature independent of the disciplinary context.
		• Oates (1992) examined definitions of transfer and the relationship between research on transfer and various curricula designed to promote it.
Review and critique	1	• Beach (1999) called for creating more opportunities for learning transfer, by expanding school activities to culturally productive activities and by creating new activities that mediate participation in schools and in other institutions.
		• Lobato (2006) presented conceptual critiques on the classical transfer approach along with alternative emerging approaches.
		• Subedi (2004) reviewed the literature and empirical research studies dealing with facilitating transfer from training to workplace.
		• Smagorinsky and Smith (1992) reviewed issues related to transfer, with the focus on the nature of knowledge in composition and literacy understanding.
		• Tigchelaar et al. (2010) linked the term ‘transfer’ with second career teachers and with previous experiences from prior professional domains.
Transfer as a secondary issue or as a physical skill	73	• Notar et al. (2005) discussed a teaching model for technology-based distance learning. Transfer is discussed as one of the model’s goals.
		• Pea and Kurland (1984) examined the mental activities engaged by computer programming and the expected cognitive and educational benefits. Transfer is discussed as one of the cognitive outcomes of programming.
		• The study by Cohen et al. (2005) focused on skill expressed by participants – using their left hand at initial testing and at retesting (the same hand). The term transfer skill was used to express goal-based movement transfer from one hand to another.

---

As Table 1 shows, in most articles (73%) transfer was not the main focus. Some mentioned the importance of transfer in the introduction or in the discussion section and others described transferable physical skills or transfer as the ability to solve a problem in a modified context. Approximately 16% of the articles focused on empirical research related to transfer skills in education (in elementary schools, in high-schools and in higher education) or in preparation for and in the workplace. Only 5% were position articles with emphasis on the importance of transfer. In 5% of the articles the term transfer was defined and some theoretical frameworks for enhancing transfer were laid out. Seven other articles were reviews and critiques on transfer. One of these articles focused on the nature of knowledge in composition and literature, another was on training for transfer in workplaces, and the other papers presented critiques on transfer measurement and generalization (Smagorinsky and Smith, 1992; Beach, 1999; Subedi, 2004). The state of affairs, as reflected in this paper, underlines the necessity to thoroughly review the literature on transfer in education.

Classifications and definitions of transfer

In the literature, transfer is referred to in a wide range of terms. Based on the articles and book sources, the articles were classified by community-specific transfer. We adapted this term from Smagorinsky and Smith (1992), who discussed community-specific knowledge in the context of composition and literature. Our search for a plausible classification has shown that the emphasis on different aspects of transfer is community-specific. Therefore, some classifications, as presented in (Table 4, Appendix), are based on the following communities: teachers and learners, cognitive scientists, higher education, and workplaces. One of the sub-categories is titled Emphasized Aspect(s) (see Table 4, Appendix). Teachers and learners were found to be the community with mainly empirical research articles and very few on theory. This might explain the existing gap between theoretical and empirical aspects due to lack of emphasis on transfer in the educational processes. Transfer in the teachers–learners community is viewed as meaningful learning that takes place when appropriate transfer-fostering educational methods are applied. Research on the teachers–learners community is concerned with issues such as differences between students’ transfer competence and their actual performance. In the cognitive scientists community transfer is viewed as a cognitive process in which the information encoding pattern is attached to the way information was organized in the learner’s mind in a previous learning situation. This mechanism distinguishes between skills that are needed for challenging the new learning situation and experience in problem solving techniques, which can be transferred from one problem to another.

In research on the higher education community, transfer is regarded as an active and constructive learning process that helps prepare for future learning and is essential for life-long education and learning. Finally, in the workplace community, transfer is viewed as training for applications in workplaces. In this context, transfer is the degree to which trainees effectively apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training situation in the job environment.

Further content analysis of the theoretical articles revealed several attributes of transfer skills. We identified three main attributes of a transfer task: (a) task distance [TD], which refers to the similarity or difference from the previous task; (b) interdisciplinarity [I], which refers to contexts, domains, or disciplines; and (c) skill set [S], which accounts for the various thinking skills that the task requires. Table 2 presents the various definitions and attributes of transfer based on the current literature.

Table 2 Transfer definitions and attributes

Definition	Attribute	Citation
Near transfer occurs when the new learning situation is similar to a previous situation, and only slightly differs from it.	Refers to similarities and differences between learning situations (TD)	Clark and Mayer (2008), Marton (2006), Barnett and Ceci (2002), Perkins and Salomon (1996), Detterman (1993)
Far transfer occurs when the new learning situation is of different patterns from those of previous ones.
Specific transfer refers to transferring contents of learning to a new situation.	Refers to the knowledge being transferred: context or contents, and skills (I + S)	Detterman (1993), Perkins and Salomon (1996)
Non-specific or general transfer occurs when general skills or principles are transferred to new situations.
Negative transfer occurs when learning in one context undermines a performance in another context.
Positive transfer occurs when learning in one context enhances a performance in another context.
Within-task transfer is defined as use of dimensional integration by addition of a novel part to a task that was taught before.	Refers to the role of instruction, comparison, and integration of skills (S)	Butterfield and Nelson (1991)
Across-task transfer is used for addition of a task that had not yet been taught at all.
Low road transfer occurs in situations similar to previous practice, and is often characterized by a reflexive response in the transfer situation and little ability to verbally or otherwise symbolize the strategy or principle being applied.	Refers to similarities and differences between learning situations, skills, a variety of contexts, domains, or disciplines (TD + I + S)	Perkins and Salomon (1987; 1996)
High road transfer is the application of ideas and principles in different domains, and involves deliberate abstractions from one context and application to another, leading to deliberate response and ability to describe the strategy or principle being applied.		Salomon and Perkins (1989)
Specific and short-term learning – retention: cognitive-structure that refers to the organizational properties of the immediate and relevant concepts that affect learning and retention of relatively small units of related and new subject matter.	Refers to the performance level in the same subject matter (I)	Ausubel et al. (1978)
General and long-term learning: cognitive-structure that refers to significant properties of the learner’s total knowledge.
Vertical transfer requires mastering a certain level of skills in order to learn higher-level skills.	Refers to the learning hierarchy and thinking skills (I + S)	Gagne (1975)
Lateral transfer requires generalization of learning themes without necessarily learning new skills.

---

As Table 2 shows, the definitions of transfer tend to be aggregated in pairs, so that the two transfer types within a pair constitute an attribute of transfer. The following seven pairs were identified: near vs. far transfer; specific vs. non-specific or general transfer; negative vs. positive transfer; within-task vs. across-task transfer; low road vs. high road transfer; specific and short-term learning vs. general and long-term learning; and vertical vs. lateral transfer. Each pair relates to a certain measure of transfer. These measures are recorded in the leftmost column of Table 2. For example, the definitions of near and far transfer build on the measure of similarities and differences between learning situations. The distinction between specific and non-specific transfer is based on content knowledge and thinking skills. Barnett and Ceci (2002) suggested taxonomy which includes two main attributes, content and context. The content attribute includes learned skill, performance change, and memory demands, while the context attribute pertains to the knowledge domain, modality, physical, temporal, functional, and social context. Salomon and Globerson (1987), who used the terms low road and high road transfer, founded their distinction on three measures: differences between learning situations, disciplines, and strategies.

To summarize this section, the three main attributes of a transfer task are task distance [TD], interdisciplinarity [I], and (c) skill set [S].

Assessment† of transfer

Further analysis of the empirical research papers revealed that empirical studies have attempted to assess transfer skills. Early on, Thorndike (1906, 1913) investigated whether transfer was applied successfully following training of comparing and assessing the size of rectangles with an area of 10 cm² to those with 100 cm². He found that the improvement in assessment was moderate when the size of the rectangles was different from the size of those used in the training, and the improvement decreased with increasing difference between rectangles. Judd (1908) viewed transfer as a function of the way in which the first learning situation was dealt with by the learners and not only by the function of similarities and differences between the two learning situations. In the first learning situation, students’ ability to hit an underwater target was investigated. One group practiced without any instruction, while the other received general principles of refraction of light. In the second situation, students were confronted with different underwater target locations. The two groups performed equally well in the first situation, but in the second situation the group which received explanations on light refraction outperformed the other group.

Researchers have claimed that spontaneous transfer is negligible and have suggested that transferring knowledge and skills to novel learning situations depends on the methods of instruction in previous situations (Judd, 1908; Detterman, 1993; Marton, 2006). We investigated the relationship between educational or instructional methods and one or more of our three proposed transfer skill attributes. Exploring articles in our literature search that focus on investigating applications of transfer, we found that different learning environments foster one or more transfer attributes. About 60% of these articles do not provide sufficient theoretical background on transfer. Only 40% of the articles specify precisely how transfer skills should be assessed.

Analysis of these papers revealed the following instruction methods, which affect the acquisition of transfer skills amongst learners:

• problem-based learning (Masui and De Corte, 1999; Adams et al., 2003),

• cooperative learning (Zohar, 1994),

• teaching and assessing via case studies (Lohman, 2002; Sasson and Dori, 2006), and

• metacognitive instruction (Zohar and Nemet, 2002; Veenman et al., 2004).

Additionally, fostering specific thinking skills, such as question posing (Lee, 1980; Kaberman and Dori, 2009), inquiry (Lawson et al., 2000; Keselman, 2003), and reasoning (Lin and Lehman, 1999; Sadler and Fowler, 2006), can contribute to students’ ability to apply knowledge and skills in new learning situations. Worked examples are instructional tools intended to teach problem-solving skills, usually in which the process of problem solving is modeled. Researchers found a positive effect of worked examples on transfer skills (Moreno, 2006; Van Gog et al., 2008; Rourke and Sweller, 2009). Transfer behavior in problem-solving situations is strongly connected with metacognitive functions, therefore Kapa (2007) claimed that metacognitive training is effective for the development of near and far transfer.

Empirical research papers on transfer usually have focused on one or more transfer attributes. For example, focusing on the task distance attribute, Muthukrishna and Borkowski (1995) tested the hypothesis that discovery-based instruction affects students’ performance in near and far transfer problems and develops their ability to think and communicate mathematically.

Sue (1997) focused on two attributes – task distance and skill set. The researcher investigated the effects of scientific inquiry on visitors in a science museum exhibition on their understanding of applying near transfer assignments. Table 3 presents empirical research studies sorted by learning environments, theoretical background, objectives, assessment methods, and transfer attributes. Out of the 20 studies listed in the table, 19 were selected (from the 79 articles classified in Table 2) as empirical research papers that focus on transfer skills. We added our own chapters that focuses on the investigation of transfer skills in the Case-based Computerized Laboratory (CCL) environment.‡ The reason for this inclusion is that our study, as well as studies by Zohar (1994) and Lin and Lehman (1999) are the only ones that integrate all three transfer attributes: task distance, interdisciplinarity, and skill set.

Table 3 The empirical research literature on transfer skills – theoretical background, objectives, and transfer dimensions

Learning environment	Theoretical background	Objectives	Transfer dimensions of the research design	Citation
Problem solving-based learning	None	Assessing the usefulness of skills taught in a medical course based on problem solving in the workplace.	Skill set	Adams et al. (2003)
	None	Investigating the effect of orienting and self-judgment instructions during a series of 10 sessions based on problem-solving activities related to transfer occurring between courses.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set	Masui and De Corte (1999)
	None	Investigating the effect of a problem-based educational package on breast disease and early detection of breast cancer on the improvement of knowledge and comfort in patient management. The researchers compared students’ transfer ability while studying with a home-study module vs. a workshop format.	Skill set	Young et al. (1998)
	Discussed	Investigating the effect of problem-based learning (PBL) on transfer of principles and concepts.	Skill set	Norman and Schmidt (1992)
Inquiry-based learning	Discussed	Investigating students' performance and meta-level scientific competency by strengthening their mental models of multivariable causality. Comparison between three experimental conditions was made: performance-level exercise, performance-level exercise + prediction practice, and performance-level exercise + prediction practice + direct instruction.	Skill set	Keselman (2003)
	None	Testing the hypothesis claiming there are two general developmentally-based levels of testing if hypothesis skills exist.	Skill set	Lawson et al. (2000)
	None	Investigating the effects of different scientific inquiry activities on museum exhibition visitors’ science understanding. The visitors were given near transfer assignments.	Skill set, task distance	Sue (1997)
	None	Testing the hypothesis that discovery-based instruction affects students’ performance in near and far transfer problems and develops students’ ability to think and communicate mathematically.	Task distance	Muthukrishna and Borkowski (1995)
		The research compared between direct strategy instruction, guided discovery, direct teaching plus discovery and control condition.
Question posing	Discussed	Investigating what type of review is effective for transfer of computational skills.	Skill set	Lee (1980)
Case studies	Discussed	Investigating the development of near and far transfer skills of students at various academic levels in the Case-based Computerized Laboratory.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set, task distance	Sasson and Dori (2006, 2012)
	None	Meta analysis of empirical research papers presenting four problem-based approaches: case study, goal-based scenario, problem-based learning and action learning.	Skill set, task distance	Lohman (2002)
	Discussed	Investigating the effect of various case-based instructional strategies on lasting learning and long-term retention in chemical education	Skill set	Arzi et al. (1986)
Instructional-based learning	None	Investigating the effect of instructing the Genetic Revolution on the development of knowledge in biology, argumentation skills and transfer of these skills to new contexts.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set	Zohar and Nemet (2002)
	None	Investigating the effect of instructional-based learning in LOGO on the development of near and far transfer skills.	Skill set, task distance	Lee and Thompson (1997)
Reasoning instruction	Partial. Theoretical reference is limited: only to the threshold model of content knowledge transfer.	Exploring whether and how students transfer genetics understanding to argumentation contexts of biotechnology and society.	Skill set	Sadler and Fowler (2006)
	None	Investigating the effect of the instruction type (reasoning, justification, rule based, emotion focused, or none) on near and far transfer skills in computerized simulation-based biology studies.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set, task distance	Lin and Lehman (1999)
Meta-cognitive instruction	None	Investigating the generalizability of metacognitive skills across domains during development of those skills.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set	Veenman et al. (2004)
	Discussed	Investigating the effect of metacognitive instructions on children’s transfer skills. Three types of transfer skills were examined: within-task, across-tasks and inventive transfer. Two kinds of metacognitive instructions were used: strategy similarity and hypothesis generation.	Skill set, task distance	Butterfield and Nelson (1991)
Cooperative learning	Discussed	Investigating transfer of thinking skills across domains, and comparison between learning of a strategy individually and in a "class-like" setting.	Interdisciplinarity, skill set, task distance	Zohar (1994)
Analogies	Discussed	Investigating children’s ability to transfer what they have learned to analogous problems.	Skill set, task distance	Brown et al. (1989)

---

Classification of transfer is not consistent; in empirical research studies on transfer investigators use a diversity of methodologies, content, and participants (Barnett and Ceci, 2002). Use of different methods for assessment of transferred knowledge and skills may have an effect on the studies’ results. Therefore, common, uncomplicated, and explicit definitions are needed.

In summary, we integrated researchers’ ideas (presented both in theoretical definitions of transfer and empirical research of assessment of knowledge and skills) and assembled a theoretical framework for the three attributes of transfer.

The three attributes of transfer

An agreed-upon definition phrases transfer as the ability to apply cognitive gains from one learning situation to another learning situation. Since, as shown in Table 2, no solid view of the various transfer skill types has been established, we propose a three-attribute transfer framework that elaborates on the work of Salomon and Globerson (1987). Salomon and Globerson (1987), who focused on different kinds of learners, suggested a spectrum spanning from mindfulness to mindlessness, which encompasses three clusters: cognitive, motivational, and personal. Since we focus also on transfer assignments in science education in general and in chemistry in particular, we suggest the following transfer attributes: task distance, interdisciplinarity, and skill set.

The first attribute, task distance, TD, was described by Clark and Voogel (1985), Detterman (1993), Misko (1995) and Marton (2006). TD is a spectrum which ranges from close similarity of the new task to the reference task on one side all the way to a large difference on the other side. The second attribute, interdisciplinarity, I, according to Salomon and Globerson (1987) and Detterman (1993), is the act of drawing from two or more academic disciplines or sub-disciplines and integrating their insight to work together in pursuit of a common goal. Finally, the third attribute, as suggested by Gagne (1975) and by Perkins and Salomon (1992), skill set, S, includes mental abilities or proficiencies that are acquired or developed through learning, training, or experience.

Each attribute is a complex, non-linear spectrum of concepts in its own right. The spectrum spanned by these three complex dimensions gives rise to a large quantity of characteristics. The task distance attribute, TD, ranges from close similarity incrementally to high disparity or unlikeness. For example, in the domain of chemical education, after learning the structure of sodium chloride, NaCl_(s), a task with a close similarity in the TD spectrum is to explain the structure of potassium chloride, KCl_(s). An example of a task with high disparity is to explain the structure of graphite, C_(s).

Likewise, the task interdisciplinarity attribute, I, starts with a sub-discipline (e.g., organic chemistry, biochemistry or quantum mechanics). It passes through an entire discipline (e.g., chemistry, biology, industry or economics), and goes all the way to the integration of disciplines from increasingly disparate domains such as physics and social sciences, or biology and philosophy. Finally, the skill set attribute, S, ranges from lower-level thinking skills such as memorizing and recall, to higher-order thinking skills such as question posing, inquiry, graphing, and critical thinking.

Fig. 1 depicts the three attributes of transfer in a 3D space, where the learning situation changes from near to far transfer. The solid bold arrow is the ideal but rare case in which all three dimensions, namely Task Distance – TD, Interdisciplinarity – I, and Skill Set – S are high.

Fig. 1 Characterizations of the 3D transfer skills framework: near vs. far transfer.

There are three less ideal but more common cases (see dashed and dotted bold arrows in Fig. 1): (A) when only the TD and S are high; (B) when only I and S are high; and (C) when TD and I are high.

Near transfer occurs when the new learning situation has the following features:

• The learning situation is similar to the previous learning situation – TD is short.

• The learning situation is drawn on a single discipline or is based on closely related content – I is low.

• The learning situation requires application of a relatively small set of skills – S is simple.

In contrast, far transfer occurs when a student has to perform in a new and different learning situation (TD is long) that requires application of skills (S is complex) and knowledge from one or more discipline other than the one in which the learning took place originally (I is high). The combination of these three complex attributes gives rise to a large amount of transfer task difficulties. In general, the difficulty of a transfer task increases as we move away from the point of origin, in which TD, I, and S are minimal, to the point where all three attributes are at their highest value. Interim difficulty levels arise for combinations in which one or two attributes are low while the rest are high.

Fig. 1 presents a summary of how one should design assignments and learning environments that foster transfer skills. This can be achieved primarily through developing students’ ability to apply skills and knowledge in new and different learning situations.

Chemical education application in the CCL learning environment

The Computerized Chemistry Laboratory (CCL) is a learning environment that integrates the educational elements of case-based and inquiry-based learning, along with computer-based real-time data collection and graphing. Students learning activities expand their understanding of chemistry by leading them to a systematic treatment of real-life situations that are presented as case studies. Processing of the problems presented in these case studies fosters an inquiry-based approach that incorporates computerized probes (sensors) and automatic graphing capabilities for investigating relationships between variables and visualizing them immediately during ‘hands-on’ laboratories (Dori and Sasson, 2008; Kaberman and Dori, 2009; Barnea et al., 2010).

For demonstrating our transfer framework, the opening paragraph of one of the case studies titled Trees cause air pollution – Is this possible? follows.

Volatile hydrocarbons are naturally emitted from various types of trees. Isoprene (C₅H₈) is the most common organic compound that oak and sycamore trees emit. Researchers assume that Isoprene emission is part of the tree heat protection mechanism. Updated research emphasizes the role of isoprene in the process of smog formation. Due to photochemistry reactions, which involve nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, oxidant materials such as ozone (O₃) disperse in air and create the smog effects – Haze, inadequate visibility and bad smell.

The near transfer assignment given for this case study is as follows.

Based on molecular structure, explain why isoprene (C₅H₈) dissolves well in carbon tetra-chloride (CCl₄) but not in water (H₂O).

This is a near transfer assignment since it requires knowledge and application of previous chemical understanding of inter and intra-molecular bonding. Students studied this subject theoretically as part of the chemical structure and bonding topic. The assignment was defined as a near transfer assignment since it is similar to one or more assignments the students had previously learned (Task Distance – TD is short) and the subject matter is chemistry (Interdisciplinarity – I is low). Students’ previous knowledge included the ability to apply the four chemistry understanding levels: (a) the symbol level, which contains formulae, equations and graphs; (b) the macroscopic level, which includes the observable or tangible phenomena; (c) the microscopic level, which requires explanations at the particle level (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel and Bunce, 1994; Nakhleh and Krajcik, 1994); and (d) the process level, which refers to the way substances react with each other (Dori and Hameiri, 2003; Robinson, 2003; Dori and Sasson, 2008). The process level usually embodies more than one level of understanding. Students were required to explain their responses based on as many chemistry understanding levels as possible and to cross-link these levels. In the near transfer assignments, students were required to compare various compounds in search for similarities and differences in their properties based on the compounds’ inter and intra-molecular bonds. Comparison combined with application of knowledge is an example of intermediate-level skill (Skill set – S is medium).

The far transfer assignments demonstrated the application of the three transfer attributes. An example of a far transfer assignment is given below.

Communication between certain animal species is mediated by a group of isoprene-derived hydrocarbons. Describe the special characteristics of these compounds, which enable their transfer from one animal to another through air.

The three transfer attributes are embedded in the task as explained below.

• Task distance, TD: the assignment requires dealing with a new and different learning situation, not previously encountered by the student.

• Interdiciplinarity, I: the assignment requires comprehension of several chemical understanding levels and their application in science disciplines in addition to chemistry.

• Skill set, S: the assignment calls for application of various skills, including scientific literacy and reasoning.

Discussion

Our broad search retrieving 664 papers on transfer started with analysis of the papers according to several theoretical aspects: definitions, types, and assessment methods. We then found that the literature describing empirical studies on near and far transfer skills lacked sufficient theoretical background and methodological framework. In view of the lack of coherence and consistency in the body of knowledge on transfer, we suggested a theoretical framework, in which transfer is characterized by the three transfer attributes.

Critical discussion

Our critical discussion refers to several aspects: education for transfer, research on transfer, and the need to narrow the gap between theory and practice. The literature emphasizes that usually transfer does not occur spontaneously. Transferring knowledge and skills to novel learning situations depends on the instructional design of the previous situations. Teachers should explicitly teach transfer and the call for mindfulness is significant for transfer success (Judd, 1908; Salomon and Globerson, 1987; Detterman, 1993; Marton, 2006). Despite the importance, transfer of learning is not a central concept in pre-service or teachers’ professional training programs. As Eraut (2004) argued, until the nature and the importance of transfer are recognized and supported, the impact of education will continue to be lower than expected and the quality of work will suffer from the limited use of relevant knowledge. Deep understanding of transfer by definitions and assessment methods is essential for educational and learning applications. Clark and Mayer (2008) presented near transfer as a teaching procedure and far transfer as a teaching strategy. They claimed that encoding specificity states that the cues for retrieving information after learning must be embedded at the time of learning. They suggested fostering far transfer by comparing examples and cases, in which the surface features change but the principles remain the same. In order to foster students’ near and far transfer skills, we recommend that developers of educational programs and instructional designers adjust transfer assignments according to the transfer framework proposed in this paper.

Research on transfer is usually influenced by the researcher’s perspective (as in other studies), and expert performance is often used as the only ambitious target. There is a lack of agreement among scholars on transfer definitions and therefore in their discussions they face problems in clearly defining factors for determining whether, when, and how transfer occurs. Although Barnett and Ceci (2002) suggested taxonomy for transfer based on content and context factors, it seems there is still a need for an uncomplicated framework that can be applied in both empirical and practical fields, while allowing various researchers from a variety of disciplines to agree on how to measure transfer and how to determine if it is a success or a failure of transfer (Broudy, 1977; Bransford and Schwartz, 1999; Carraher and Schliemann, 2002). As the variety of studies in Table 3 show, the transfer framework can contribute to better understanding the differences between the various transfer-related research designs. We, in this paper, added the focus of investigation to transferability of the learned skills to novel learning situations. This research setting fits the skill set attribute. Masui and De Corte (1999), who investigated the effect of orienting and self-judging instruction on transfer between different domain courses, used two of the transfer attributes: interdisciplinarity and skill set for their study. Only three studies (Zohar, 1994; Lin and Lehman, 1999; Sasson and Dori, 2006, 2012) studied all three attributes of transfer in their research.

Open questions for further research

Our literature research revealed only a small number of position articles and theory type papers for the teachers and learners community. This emphasizes the existing gap between theoretical and empirical aspects due to the absence of emphasis on the importance of transfer in educational processes. The theoretical framework, containing the three attributes of transfer, integrates previous researchers’ ideas in order to respond to the educational community’s needs. Researchers can use this framework in future studies as a basis for their own studies.

Summarizing Part I of our study, we note that it contributes to the body of literature on transfer at the theoretical level. We have pointed out commonalities and differences between the various current transfer definitions and proposed a new transfer framework. We have also shown the interplay between specific learning environments and their effect on students’ transfer skills. Part II of this study will focus on research of transfer skills in chemical education, adding evidence for the option to narrow the gap between the theory of transfer, empirical research, and the practice of transfer in science classrooms in general, and chemical education in particular.

Appendix

Table 4.

Table 4 Emphasized aspects of transfer within the different communities

Community-specific transfer	Frequency of article type^a (%)	Emphasized aspect(s)	Citation
a Out of the specific community.
Teachers and learners	Empirical research – 66% Position – 8% Theory – 3% Transfer as a secondary issue – 23%	Transfer in teachers–students interactions:	De Corte (2003), Smagorinsky and Smith (1992), Neeper (1991), Perkins and Salomon (1988, 1992), Salomon and Perkins (1989), van Merriënboer et al. (2002), Ausubel et al. (1978), Gagne (1975)
		• Teachers assume that students apply prior knowledge to new situations.
		• There are differences between students’ competence and performance.
		• Educational methods and strategies for enhancing transfer are proposed.
		• Transfer is discussed as meaningful learning.
		• Students experience difficulties in transfer.
		• Transfer is crucial to education, which generally aspires to impact on contexts quite differently from the context of learning.
Cognitive scientists	Theory – 41% Position – 24% Review and critique – 18% Empirical research – 11% Transfer as a secondary issue – 6%	Transfer as part of cognitive processes:	Engel (2006), Sternberg and Frensch (1993), Salomon and Globerson (1987)
		• The transfer mechanism refers to the information encoding pattern which is attached to the way information was kept and organized in the learner’s mind in a previous learning situation.
		• The mechanism distinguishes between skills that are needed for challenging the new learning situation and experience in problem solving techniques, which can be transferred from one problem to another.
		• Transfer as a generalization process.
Higher education	Empirical research – 55% Position – 40% Transfer as a secondary issue – 5%	Transfer as an active and constructive learning process:	Burke et al. (2005), Cargill (2004), De Corte (2003), Halpern and Hakel (2002), James (2002)
		• Transfer helps prepare for future learning.
		• Transferable skills may develop across domains.
		• Transfer is essential for life-long education and learning.
Workplace	Empirical research – 41% Position – 23% Theory – 18% Review and critique – 6% Transfer as a secondary issue – 12%	Training via transfer as a preparation for applications in workplaces:	Szulanski and Jensen (2006), Subedi (2004), Atlay and Harris (2000), Lim (2000), Pillay (1998), Young et al. (1998), Inkpen and Tsang (2005).
		• Transfer can serve as the degree to which trainees effectively apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training context to the job environment.
		• Multi-skilling, cross-skilling, and strategies of training affect sustained transfer over a period of time.
		• Linking social capital dimensions to the conditions that facilitate knowledge transfer.

---

References

1. Adams J., Schaffer A., Lewin S., Zwarenstein M. and van der Walt H., (2003), Health systems research training enhances workplace research skills: a qualitative evaluation, J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof., 23, 210–220.
2. Arzi H. J., Ben-zvi R. and Ganiel U., (1986), Forgetting versus savings: the many facets of long-term retention, Sci. Educ., 70, 171–188.
3. Atlay M. and Harris R., (2000), An institutional approach to developing students “transferable” skills, Innovat. Educ. Train. Int., 37, 76–84.
4. Ausubel D. P., Novak J. D. and Hanesian H., (1978), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd edn, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reprinted (1986). New York: Warbel and Peck.
5. Barnea N., Dori Y. J. and Hofstein A., (2010), Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 218–228.
6. Barnett S. M. and Ceci S. J., (2002), When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer, Psychol. Bull., 128(4), 612–637.
7. Bassok M. and Hoyyoak K. J., (1993), Pragmatic knowledge and conceptual structure: determinants of transfer between quantitative domains, in Detterman D. K. and Sternberg R. J. (ed.) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 68–98.
8. Beach K., (1999), Consequential transitions: a sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education, Rev. Res. Educ., 24, 101–139.
9. Bransford J. D. and Schwartz D. L., (1999), Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications, Rev. Res. Educ., 74, 61–100.
10. Broudy H. S., (1977), Types of knowledge and purposes of education, in Anderson R. C., Spiro R. J. and Montague W. E. (ed.) Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–17.
11. Brown A. L., Kane M. J. and Long C., (1989), Analogical transfer in young children: analogoes as tools for communication and exposition, Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 3, 275–293.
12. Burke V., Jones I. and Doherty M., (2005), Analyzing student perceptions of transferable skills via undergraduate degree programmes, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 132–144.
13. Butterfield E. C. and Nelson G. D., (1991), Promoting positive transfer of different types, Cognit. Instruct., 8, 69–102.
14. Cargill M., (2004), Transferable skills within research degrees: a collaborative genre-based approach to developing publication skills and its implications for research education, Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 83–98.
15. Carraher D. and Schliemann A. D., (2002), The transfer dilemma, J. Learn. Sci., 11, 1–24.
16. Clark R. C. and Mayer R. E., (2008), e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 2nd edn, ch. 10, Pfeiffer Publication, pp. 201–230.
17. Clark R. E. and Voogel R., (1985), Transfer of training principles, Educ. Commun. Technol. J., 33, 113–123.
18. Cohen D. A., Pascual-Leone A., Press D. Z. and Robertson E. M., (2005), Off-line learning of motor skill memory: a double dissociation of goal and movement, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 102(50), 18237–18241.
19. Cornford I. R., (1991), Microteaching skill generalization and transfer: training preservice teachers in introductory lesson skills, Teach. Teacher Educ., 7, 25–56.
20. De Corte E., (2003), Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations, Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci., 12, 142–146.
21. Denzin N. K., (1978), The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods, New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Denzin N. K. and Lincoln Y. S., (2000), Introduction, in Denzin N. K. and Lincoln Y. S. (ed.). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–28.
23. Detterman D. K., (1993), The case for the prosecution: transfer as an epiphenomenon, in Detterman D. K. and Sternberg R. J. (ed.) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–24.
24. Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003), Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems – Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(3), 278–302.
25. Dori Y. J. and Sasson I., (2008), Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: the value of bidirectional visual and textual representations, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(2), 219–250.
26. Engel R. A., (2006), Framing interactions to foster generative learning: a situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 451–498.
27. Eraut M., (2004), Transfer of Knowledge between Education and Workplace Settings, in Fuller A., Munro A. and Rainbird H. (ed.), Workplace Learning in Context, London: Routledge, pp. 201–221.
28. Gabel D. L. and Bunce D. M., (1994), Research on problem solving: chemistry, in Gabel D. L. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp. 301–326.
29. Gagne R. M., (1975), Essentials of learning for instruction, Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.
30. Greeno J. G., (2006), Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: progressive themes in understanding transfer, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 537–547.
31. Halpern D.F., and Hakel M.D., (2002), Learning that last a lifetime: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer, New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 89, 3-7.
32. Inkpen A. and Tsang E. W. K., (2005), Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer, Acad. Manage. Rev., 30(1), 146–165.
33. James P., (2002), A blueprint for skills assessment in higher education, Assess. Eval. Higher Educ., 25, 353–367.
34. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 7, 75–83.
35. Judd C. H., (1908), The relation of special training and general intelligence, in Marton F. (2006), Sameness and difference in transfer, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 499–535.
36. Kaberman Z. and Dori Y. J., (2009), Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment, Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436.
37. Kapa E., (2007), Transfer from structured to open-ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment, Eur. Res. Int., 17, 688–707.
38. Keselman A., (2003), Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40, 898–921.
39. King-Johnson D.A., (1992), Using analogies to form conceptual models to facilitate transfer, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 17(1), 1-7.
40. Lawson A. E., Clark B., Cramer-Meldrum E., Falconer K. A., Sequist J. F. and Kwon Y., (2000), Development of Scientific Reasoning in College Biology: Do Two Levels of General Hypothesis-Testing Skills Exist? J. Res. Sci. Teach., 37, 81–101.
41. Lee H., (1980), The effect of review questions and review passages on transfer skills, J. Educ. Res., 73, 330–335.
42. Lee M. C. and Thompson A, (1997), Guided instruction in Logo programming and the development of cognitive monitoring strategies among college students, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 16, 125–144..
43. Lim D. H., (2000), Training design factors influencing transfer of training to the workplace within an international context, Journal of Vocational Education & Training: The Vocational Aspect of Education, 52, 243–257.
44. Lin X. and Lehman J., (1999), Supporting learning of variable comparison in a computer-based biology environment: effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 36, 837–858.
45. Lobato J., (2006), Alternative perspective on the transfer of learning: history, issues, and challenges for future research, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 431–449.
46. Lohman M., (2002), Cultivating problem – solving skills through problem – based approaches to professional development, Hum. Res. Dev. Q., 13, 243–261.
47. Masui C. and De Corte E., (1999), Enhancing learning and problem solving skills: orienting and self-judging, two powerful and trainable learning tools, Learn. Instruct., 9, 517–542.
48. Mayer R. E, Quilici J. L. and Moreno R., (1999), What is learned in an after-school computer club? J. Educ. Comput. Res., 20, 223–235.
49. Mayer R. E. and Whitrock M. C., (1996), Problem-solving transfer, in Berliner D. C. and Calfee R. C. (ed.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 47–62.
50. Marton F., (2006), Sameness and difference in transfer, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 499–535.
51. McAvinia C. and Oliver M., (2002), ‘But my subject's different’: a web-based approach to supporting disciplinary lifelong learning skills, Comput. Educ., 38, 209–220.
52. Misko J., (1995), Transfer: sing learning in new context. Leabrook, Australia: NCVER, in Subedi B. S. (2004), Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning, Int. Educ. J., 5, 591–599.
53. Moreno R., (2006), When worked examples don't work: is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learn. Instruct., 16, 170–181.
54. Motterchead D. and Suggitt S., (1996), Developing transferable skills: some examples from geomorphology teaching, J. Geogr. Higher Educ., 20, 75–82.
55. Muthukrishna N. and. Borkowski J. G., (1995), How learning contexts facilitate strategy transfer, Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 9, 425–446.
56. Nakhleh M. B. and Krajcik J. S., (1994), Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base and pH concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 31, 1077–1096.
57. Neeper A., (1991), Teaching for transfer: a simple method to upgrade lesson plans, Social Studies Texan, 7, 58–60.
58. Norman G. R. and Schmidt H. G., (1992), The psychological basis of problem based learning: a review of the evidence, Acad. Med., 67, 557–565.
59. Notar C. E., Wilson J. D. and Montgomery M. K., (2005), A distance learning model for teaching higher order thinking, College Stud. J., 39, 17.
60. Oates T., (1992), Core skills and transfer: aiming high, Educ. Train. Technol. Int., 29, 227–239.
61. Parry S., (1990), Ideas for Improving Transfer of Training, Adult Learn., 1, 19–23.
62. Pea R. D. and Kurland D. M., (1984), On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming, New Ideas Psychol., 2, 137–168.
63. Perkins D. N. and Salomon G., (1988), Teaching for transfer, Educat. Leadership, 37, 22–32.
64. Perkins D. N. and Salomon G., (1989), Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educ. Res., 18, 16–26.
65. Perkins D. N. and Salomon G., (1992), Transfer of learning, international encyclopedia of education, 2nd edn, Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
66. Perkins D. N. and Salomon G., (1996), Learning transfer, in Tuijnman A. C. (ed.) International encyclopedia of adult education and training, 2nd edn, Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon, pp. 422–427.
67. Pillay H., (1998), Cognitive skills required in contemporary workplaces, Stud. Contin. Educ., 20, 71–81.
68. Race P., (1998), An education and training toolkit for the new millennium? Innovations Educ. Train. Int., 35, 262–271.
69. Robinson W. R., (2003), Chemistry problem-solving: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 978–983.
70. Rourke A. and Sweller J., (2009), The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: learning to recognize designers' styles, Learn. Instruct., 19, 185–199.
71. Sadler T. D. and Fowler S. R., (2006), A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation, Sci. Educ., 90, 986–1004.
72. Salomon G. and Globerson T., (1987), Skill may not be enough: the role of mindfulness in learning and transfer, Int. J. Educ. Res., 11(6), 623–637.
73. Salomon G. and Perkins D. N., (1989), Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon, Educ. Psychol., 24, 113–142.
74. Sasson I. and Dori Y. J., (2006), Fostering near and far transfer in the chemistry case-based laboratory environment, in Clarebout G. and Elen J. (ed.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: advance in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 275–286.
75. Sasson I. and Dori Y. J., (2012). Transfer skills and their case-based assessment, in Fraser B. J., Tobin K. G. and McRobbie C. J. (ed.), The Second International Handbook of Science Education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag, pp. 691–710.
76. Smagorinsky P. and Smith M. W., (1992), The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: the question of specifity, Rev. Educ. Res., 63, 279–305.
77. Sternberg R. J. and Frensch P. A., (1993), Mechanisms of transfer, in Detterman D. K. and Sternberg R. J. (ed.), Transfer on trial: intelligence, cognition and instruction, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 25–38.
78. Strand-Cary M. and Klahr D., (2008), Developing elementary science skills: instructional effectiveness and path independence, Cognit. Dev., 23(4), 488–511.
79. Subedi B. S., (2004), Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning, Int. Educ. J., 5, 591–599.
80. Sue A., (1997), Using scientific inquiry activities in exhibit explanations, Sci. Educ., 81, 715–734.
81. Szulanski G. and Jensen R. J., (2006), Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer, Strategic Manage. J., 27, 937–957.
82. Thorndike E. L., (1901), The human nature club: an introduction to the study of mental life, 2nd edn, New York: MacMillan, in Subedi B. S. (2004), Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning, Int. Educ. J., 5, 591–599.
83. Thorndike E. L., (1913), Educational psychology: vol. 2. The psychology of Learning, New York: Columbia University Press, in Marton F. (2006), Sameness and difference in transfer, J. Learn. Sci., 15, 499–535.
84. Tigchelaar A., Brouwer N. and Vermunt J. D., (2010), Tailor-made: towards a pedagogy for educating second-career teachers, Educ. Res. Rev., 5, 164–183.
85. Van Gog T., Paas F. and Van Merriënboer J. G., (2008), Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency, Learn. Instruct., 18, 211–222.
86. van Merriënboer J. J. G., Schuurman J. G., de Croock M. B. M. and Paas F. G. W. C., (2002), Redirecting learners' attention during training: effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency, Learn. Instruct., 12, 11–37.
87. Veenman M. V. J., Wilhelm P. and Beishuizen J. J., (2004), The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective, Learn. Instruct., 14, 89–109.
88. Wallace P. R., (1992), An incremental transfer approach to instructional design, Aust. Soc. Educ. Technol., 151–155. Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/edtech92/wallace.html.
89. Young C., Chart P., Franssen E., Tipping J., Morris B. and Davis D., (1998), Effective continuing education for breast disease: a randomized trial comparing home study and workshop formats, J. Contin. Educ. Health Professions, 18, 86–92.
90. Zimrot R. and Ashkenazi G., (2007), Interactive lecture demonstrations: a tool for exploring and enhancing conceptual change, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8(2), 197–211.
91. Zohar A., (1994), Teaching a thinking strategy: transfer across domains and self learning versus class-like setting, Appl. Cognit. Psycol., 8, 549–563.
92. Zohar A. and Nemet F., (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39, 35–62.

---

Footnotes

† In Part II of this paper we will further elaborate on the assessment of transfer skills.

‡ In Part II of this paper we will further elaborate on the CCL learning environment.

---