Chapter 11 Further Reading

Transfer: How to Learn Something Once and Use It Everywhere

Tier 1: Foundational Works (Start Here)

These are the landmark texts that established the research base for this chapter. If you read nothing else, read these.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355. The study that launched modern transfer research. Gick and Holyoak's fortress-radiation experiment demonstrated that learners rarely transfer solutions spontaneously, even when the structural analogy is straightforward. The paper systematically explores the conditions under which analogical transfer does and doesn't occur, including the critical finding that an explicit hint to use the analogy dramatically increases transfer. This is the single most important paper in the chapter — everything about surface vs. structural similarity, the role of hints, and the challenge of spontaneous transfer traces back to this work.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1-38. The sequel to the 1980 paper, and equally important. Gick and Holyoak show that comparing two analogous stories from different domains helps learners abstract a general schema — and that this schema supports transfer to a new problem more effectively than studying either story alone. This paper is the empirical foundation for the "comparison principle" discussed in Section 11.4 and is essential reading for understanding how abstract schemas are formed.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170. The theoretical foundation for analogical reasoning as discussed in this chapter. Gentner's structure-mapping theory argues that analogies work by mapping relational structures (not object attributes) from a base domain to a target domain. This paper explains why structural similarity drives productive analogies while surface similarity leads to superficial ones. Dense but foundational — it changed how cognitive scientists think about analogy, comparison, and transfer.

Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533. The paper that introduced transfer-appropriate processing. Morris, Bransford, and Franks demonstrated that memory performance depends not just on how deeply information is processed, but on the match between encoding and retrieval processes. This paper is the bridge between the levels-of-processing framework (Chapter 12) and the transfer framework — it shows that "deep" processing isn't always best; appropriate processing is.

Tier 2: Key Studies and Reviews (Go Deeper)

These works provide important evidence, extensions, and critical perspectives on transfer.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32. The paper that introduced the high road/low road distinction and the concepts of bridging and hugging. Written for an educational audience, it's more accessible than most research papers and provides practical strategies for promoting transfer in both teaching and self-directed learning. This is the most directly actionable paper in this list — if you're looking for practical techniques, start here.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142. A more comprehensive and theoretical treatment of the high road/low road framework, including a discussion of why transfer is so difficult and what conditions support it. The paper argues that transfer is not a single phenomenon but a family of related phenomena that require different pedagogical strategies. More academic than the 1988 paper but richer in theoretical depth.

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637. The most comprehensive review of far transfer research available. Barnett and Ceci propose a detailed taxonomy of transfer dimensions (content, context, temporal context, functional context, social context, modality) and review the evidence for each. Their conclusion is nuanced: far transfer is neither impossible nor automatic. It depends on specific, identifiable conditions. Essential reading for anyone who wants the full picture of what we know about when transfer does and doesn't occur.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56. A mature statement of structure-mapping theory written for a broad psychology audience. More accessible than Gentner's 1983 paper, it includes clear examples of structural alignment and explains how similarity (at both surface and structural levels) influences analogical reasoning, category learning, and transfer. A good starting point if you want to understand the theory without diving into the technical details.

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61-100. A provocative paper that challenges traditional measures of transfer. Bransford and Schwartz argue that conventional transfer studies underestimate learners' transfer abilities because they use "sequestered problem solving" — testing whether learners can solve a new problem without any additional resources. They propose instead measuring "preparation for future learning" — whether prior learning helps people learn new things faster. This reframing has significant implications for how we think about the value of education.

Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 234-259). Oxford University Press. Holyoak's retrospective overview of analogy research, including the fortress-radiation paradigm and its many extensions. Covers thirty years of research on when and how people reason by analogy, the cognitive constraints on analogical reasoning, and the relationship between analogy and other forms of reasoning. A thorough and authoritative review.

Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355-376. Demonstrates that training learners to identify subgoals in worked examples — rather than memorizing the overall procedure — promotes transfer to novel problems. Catrambone's work shows that the way examples are structured and labeled affects whether learners extract transferable schemas or context-bound procedures. Directly relevant to the practical question of how to study worked examples for maximum transfer.

Tier 3: Practical Guides (Apply It)

These resources help you implement transfer principles in your own learning.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Harvard University Press. Chapter 5 ("Avoid Illusions of Knowing") and Chapter 6 ("Get Beyond Learning Styles") both discuss transfer extensively. The book's emphasis on varied practice, interleaving, and generating as strategies for building transferable knowledge directly supports this chapter's recommendations. The pilot and surgeon stories are vivid examples of transfer (and transfer failure) in high-stakes domains.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass. Chapter 4 ("How Do Students Develop Mastery?") provides an excellent discussion of transfer in the context of skill development. The authors distinguish between component skills and integration, and they explain how learners often master individual skills but fail to transfer them to contexts that require integration. Written for teachers but equally useful for self-directed learners.

National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded Edition). National Academies Press. Chapter 3 ("Learning and Transfer") remains one of the clearest overviews of transfer research written for a general audience. The report synthesizes decades of research and provides practical recommendations for promoting transfer in educational settings. Available free online through the National Academies Press website.

Perkins, D. N. (2009). Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education. Jossey-Bass. Perkins extends his transfer research into a comprehensive framework for "whole game" learning — designing learning experiences that help students see the big picture and transfer their skills to new contexts. The book's emphasis on learning transferable principles rather than isolated facts is directly aligned with this chapter's recommendations.

Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. Academic Press. The most comprehensive single-volume treatment of transfer available. Haskell reviews the history of transfer research, proposes a taxonomy of transfer types, and argues that transfer requires explicit instruction and practice. Dense and academic, but thorough — the definitive reference if you want to go deep.

Tier 4: Advanced and Specialized (For the Deeply Curious)

Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction (pp. 1-24). Ablex. The skeptic's case. Detterman argues that far transfer is vanishingly rare and that most apparent examples of transfer can be explained by other mechanisms. His famous claim — "transfer is rare and its occurrence is the exception rather than the rule" — is an important counterpoint to optimistic claims about transferable learning. Read this alongside Perkins and Salomon for a balanced perspective.

Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431-449. A critical review that challenges the traditional "acquisition" model of transfer — the idea that knowledge is a thing that gets picked up in one place and carried to another. Lobato proposes an "actor-oriented" perspective that focuses on what learners actually do when they encounter new situations, rather than whether they apply the "correct" prior knowledge. A thought-provoking challenge to conventional transfer research.

Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153-176. A comprehensive theoretical review that connects different traditions of transfer research — analogical reasoning, learning science, educational psychology, cognitive science — into a unified framework. Day and Goldstone argue that transfer depends on the interaction between abstract representation and concrete experience. A sophisticated synthesis for readers with some background in cognitive science.

Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., & Bransford, J. D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214. An important paper on when transfer is actually harmful — when learners apply old solutions to situations that require genuinely new approaches. The paper explores the tension between transfer (applying what you know) and innovation (developing something new), and argues that adaptive expertise requires knowing when to transfer and when to start fresh.

Online Resources

The Bjork Learning and Forgetting Lab (bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu) While primarily focused on desirable difficulties (Chapter 10), the Bjork Lab's research on variation of practice and contextual interference is directly relevant to transfer. Robert Bjork's lectures on the conditions that promote transferable learning are available as videos on the site.

The Learning Scientists (www.learningscientists.org) Yana Weinstein and Megan Sumeracki's posts on interleaving and concrete examples both address transfer. Their blog post "How to Use Interleaving to Foster Deeper Learning" is particularly relevant to the interleaving-transfer connection discussed in Section 11.11.

Farnam Street (fs.blog) Shane Parrish's blog on mental models is essentially a practical application of the transfer principles discussed in this chapter. Mental models are abstract schemas — portable frameworks that apply across domains. The "Mental Models" section of the blog provides dozens of examples of structural patterns that transfer across business, science, and everyday life.

Reading Strategy Suggestion

Don't try to read all of these. Instead:

1. If you want the foundational experiment: Read Gick & Holyoak (1980). It's the fortress-radiation study in its original form, and it's one of those papers that changes how you think about thinking.

2. If you want the practical strategies: Read Perkins & Salomon (1988) on bridging and hugging. It's short, accessible, and immediately actionable.

3. If you want the theory of analogy: Read Gentner & Markman (1997) for structure-mapping theory. It's the clearest explanation of how analogical reasoning works.

4. If you want the full skeptical case: Read Detterman (1993), then Bransford & Schwartz (1999) for the rebuttal. Together, they give you a balanced view of what transfer can and can't do.

5. If you want one general-audience book: Get How People Learn (National Research Council, 2000). Chapter 3 is an excellent summary of transfer research, and the whole book is freely available online.

These readings extend Chapter 11 and connect to Chapters 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 21, and 25.