Technical Report 608

to Transfer of Training:

qe An Interpretive Review

IStephen M. Cormier

a 4 (

Training and Simulation Technical Area

Training Research Laboratory

DTIC

C-D ELECTE

4%* .LJOCT 1 18

B

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

January 1984

Approved for oubic releae; oi=siti ,ion u-nimited.

81 u0 2 12.

°o-

.a a 44%o W q~~~1 ~4 ~ s. a 44a a -" # '%-. , i o..°• # P ,"," °°-" " P , ? "" °P "'= "/" i . " "" " %" "= ", "- • " '"tl" " . % % " " %. % % a* " % %-% -
-~JT - 770 -...

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel. IN

Technical Director Commander

Technical review by

Joseph D. Hagman

Hilda Wing

.5. ~NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

-Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-POT, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

FINAL UISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it Is no longer

neede-d. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

% 10documents.

(II

V.I
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Men Deas Eateed) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

. REPORT NUMBER ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT*S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 608 1 2 ; T 2 / g ).- 6

4. TITLE (end Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

TRANSFER OF TRAINING: AN INTERPRETIVE REVIEW

S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(,) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

Stephen M. Cormier

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 63743

and Social Sciences 2Q263743A794

" 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 5320

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral January 1984

and Social Sciences 1S. NUMBER OF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 69

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(If diferent from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thle report)

UNCLASSIFIED

ISa. DECLASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Min Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of A. abstrct entered In Block 20. if different hom Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverae side If necoesary end Identify by block number)

Transfer of training

Information processing

Motor skills

* " Cognitive skills

24L AWTVIAC? (Coma m reer e N nreemY Rod Identify by block aaber)

* Information processing and memorial processes that have been identified by contemporary research as important factors in human learning and cognitive

activity are shown to provide a basis for explaining and predicting transfer

of training effects. Four major factors are discussed in separate sections:

the relationship between retrieval cues and encoded information, study-phase

retrieval,,organizational strategies, and performance automatization. A fifth

section briefly discusses the relevance of information processing factors to

(Continued)

DD FN W3 EVTOW Of # NOV 65 IS 09SILETE 7P@ 1413 ETI UNCLASSIFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

%
UNCLASSIFIED

Item 20 (Continued)

proactive interference phenomena. These information processing factors are

seen to exert their effect in both the laboratory and in applied settings,

providing a potential link between basic and applied research on this topic.

The similarities and differences in transfer with verbal as opposed to motoric

* . responses are also considered in light of these information processing

concepts.

Accession For 2 NT~sGRA&I

DTIC TAR

Una,-nlowc L S ~~~Just 2C3tji.

M.D3trlbutiOn/

AaiabilitV -odes

Dit special DA'I

UNCLASSIFIED

4.. iiSECUtITY CLASSIFICATION OF THI PAGE(37b~n Dais Bntered)
Technical Report 608

-~ Transfer of Training:

An Interpretive Review

Stephen M. Cormier

Submitted by

Robert J. Seidel, Chief

Training and Simulation Technical Area

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Training Research Laboratory

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria. Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

0 Department of the Army

, ..- January 1984

*Army Project Number Education and Training

20263743A794

Appwowd for publi ree: dleulbution unlimited.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

10

7:

°-V

.o

=iv($

e

° •..::~ .V ...... S~* .S~*%%* Sw %' % . V~
FOREWORD

The Training & Simulation Technical Area (Performance Readiness Team) of

the Army Research Institute (ARI) has actively pursued a program of research

i4asupport of a systems approach to training. A major focus of this research

is to develop the fundamental data and technology necessary to field integrated systems for improving individual job performance. This report summarizes the first step in the development of methods to assess and enhance

the transfer of skills from training to the job, or from one task to another.

The transfer of training literature is integrated and analyzed in order to

derive fundamental principles of transfer. The long term goal is to develop

methods for predicting the degree of transfer to be expected after specific

. training experiences.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Technical Director

Sv

%

!-

Fl
TRANSFER OF TRAINING: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

-. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirements:

'a? As part of a major program on individual training for combat

readiness, to develop a sound information base for Army decisions necessary to insure the effectiveness of training in promoting job proficiency,

this review focuses on the transfer of training from one task or skill to

another.

Procedure:

This review is based upon a wide variety of data from a extensive literature survey of pertinent research. Although military-related

tasks and findings were incorporated whenever possible, some of the experiments cited used tasks having little direct or obvious relationship

with skills currently maintained within the Army. In addition, conflicting data and data pertinent to a more detailed understanding of the behavioral consequences (transfer) of training experiences generally were

skimmed over to lend coherence to this report. Nevertheless, a number of

tentative conclusions do have considerable empirical support.

Findings:

1. Four major information processing factors are identified as

important factors in explaining and predicting transfer of training effects: a) the relationship between retrieval cues and encoded information, b) study-phase retrieval, c) organizational strategies, and d)

performance automatization.

2. The importance of the relationships between the retrieval

cues available during Task 2 performance and the material encoded in Task

1 for transfer of training has been shown in a variety of experimental and

applied research paradigms. The conditions under which Task 1 information

can be retrieved using cues present in Task 2 are shown to be an important

determinant of transfer of training in both verbal and motor learning.

Positive transfer is promoted to the extent that the cuing relationships

between the transfer task and Task 1 are distinctive and have high redintegrative value.

vii

...
These considerations are shown to be useful in analyzing

applied research, including the potential effectiveness of simulators for

aircraft and other mechanical equipment in transfer of training. Variations in simulator fidelity to the transfer environment have led to contradictory and ambiguous results. Analyses of these studies of simulator

effectiveness support the idea that the fidelity of a simulator to the

actual instrument can be based on those attributes which have high redin-

--tegrative value for correct responses. Those attributes which have lower

redintegrative value can be modified or eliminated without substantial

loss of transfer.

3. The integration of information across successive presentations of related material through a study-phase retrieval process seems to

be critical in increasing positive transfer in many situations. The juxtaposition of different events can result in the formation of higher order

concepts, as in textual prose comprehension, or can facilitate the abstraction of critical dimensions of task performance and stimulus recognition. This process can be accomplished through the appropriate variation

in Task 1 training used to define the critical dimensions. The process

seems to be applicable to both verbal and motor transfer as manifested by

the effects of variability of practice on later transfer performance. It

was also shown to be useful in understanding the relative effectiveness of

guidance versus discovery training.

4. Organizational processes are powerful aids to the learning

of new information to the extent that the transfer task can be related

effectively to the organizational plan or schema in use. A schema can be

regarded as a set of procedural and content knowledges concerning a particular domain of material. Schemata can facilitate both verbal and

motoric learning. The use of schemata produces several negative effects

on transfer. Schema-irrelevant or incongruent information will often be

learned less well than if no schema were being used. In addition, transfer material which requires a different schema than the one used in Task 1

will often lead to negative transfer because the person will spend time

trying to fit the new information into an inappropriate schema or try to

modify the old schema to fit the new material.

5. Automatized performance can occur after extended consistent

practice with particular cues or responses. Qualitative and quantitative

differences exist between automatized performance and non-automatized

performance, both in terms of the effort required to process and respond

to cues and in the nature of the performance itself. Changes in the utilization of the cues controlling iesponding have been shown to occur over

the course of training in a variety of tasks. Such changes usually occur

in the direction of more efficient stimulus processing or motor performance. As a consequence, transfer can be affected by the relationship of

the particular cues utilized in Task 1 and in the transfer task. In addition, the more efficient performance on tasks can permit time sharing

activities or the simultaneous performance of two tasks. Automatized perviii
formance tends to be highly specific to the elements consistently presented in Task 1. Thus, there may be little transfer to other components

that differ in some way from those that have become automatized. In addi-

*. tion, it can be difficult to suppress inappropriate automatized performance in transfer tasks if the controlling cues are presented.

6. Proactive interference (PI) can be interpreted as due to the

--operation of several of the factors already discussed. Prior learning can

proactively interfere with the acquisition and retention of later learning. Failures of list discrimination and reductions in the amount of

information encoded about later tasks were shown to be two important factors in the development of PI. Manipulations which increased the differentiation of material between Task 1 and Task 2 often significantly

decreased the amount of observed PI. It was shown that perceptual-motor

responding exhibits little PI, in contrast to verbal material, possibly

because of the greater distinctiveness of motoric responses. In addition,

persons seem to encode material on Task 2 more efficiently but also less

completely than Task 1 material.

Utilization of Findings:

The conclusions and implications of previous research provide a

firm basis for specific, on-going programs to develop procedures that the

Army can use to enhance the value of training for job performance.

ix

I''.'' "' /'" ""."4"' €.',2''€€. " '.J' i//i "-"- ". ''-","""."".''
• ., .. 9 • °° + 

* . TRANSFER OF TRAINING

Introduction

The increasing level of complexity in the activities and tasks required of

military personnel in the modern Army necessitates an enhancement in the amount

and effectiveness of training for these tasks. However, this increased complexity makes it less likely that training can be on-the-job (OTJ) while still

maintaining efficiency and safety. Thus, training will increasingly be con-

. ducted in settings which are different from the job environment to a gr

or lesser extent.

In these circumstances, a critical question is the degree to whic raining

* outside of the job environment actually transfers to the job itself. .n is,

does training outside of the job result in job performance levels whic -ce

comparable or greater than those attainable with OTJ training? Transfer of

training can therefore be seen to be an increasingly important consideration

in the delivery of training to military personnel. This fact necessitates an

increased emphasis on designing training programs which will have effective

transfer to the target job.

In light of these considerations, greater awareness of the training factors

-. which are known to affect transfer is an important objective for those involved

in delivering training in the Department of the Army. A better understanding

of the factors involved in transfer of training will make it more likely that

new training programs will be not only cost-effective, but also contribute to

enhanced performance of the Army's mission.

V

W6 x
Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 

1

Transfer of Training: An Interpretive Review 2

* Encoding and Retrieval Processes and Transfer 

3

Encoding Specificity 

3

Cuing Properties of Simulators 

5

Distinctiveness of the Cuing Relationship 

9

Distinctiveness and Memory 

9

Stimulus Predifferentiation 

9

Summary

Study Phase Retrieval and Transfer 11

Textual Integration 12

Stimulus Variability and Transfer 13

The Effects of Task Variation 13

Concept Formation or Abstraction 14

Motor Variability and Transfer 16

The Effects of Task Variation 16

Guidance vs. Discovery Training 17

Sunary 18

Organizational Strategies and Transfer 19

Organization and Learning 19

Schemata and Transfer 20

Positive Effects 20

Negative Effects 21

Motor Schemata 22

Part-Whole Transfer 23

Summary 25

Automatization of Performance and Transfer 25

Characteristics of Automatized Processing 26

Development of Autamatization 26

Automatization and Changes in Cue Utilization 27

Stimulus Specificity of Transfer with Autamatized 28

Task Difficulty and Transfer 30

Dual Task Performance 31

Summary 33 Proactive Interference and Information Processing 33

List Differentiation and PI 34 , Encoding Deficits 36

Summary 37

Summary 38

References 39

Reference Note 57

XI 

h

.
TRANSFER OF TRAINING: AN INTERPRETIVE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The increasing level of complexity in the activities and

tasks required of military personnel in the modern Army necessitates an enhancement in the amount and effectiveness of training

for these tasks. However, this increased complexity makes it * Iless likely that training can be on-the-job (OTJ) while still

maintaining efficiency and safety. Thus, training will increas- - ingly be conducted in settings which are different from the job

environment to a greater or lesser extent.

- In these circumstances, a critical question is the degree to

which training outside of the job environment actually transfers

to the job itself. That is, does training outside of the job

result in job performance levels which are comparable or greater

than those attainable with OTJ training? Transfer of training

can therefore be seen to be an increasingly important consideration in the delivery of training to military personnel. This

fact necessitate designing training programs which will have effective transfer to the target job.

In light of these considerations, greater awareness of the

training factors which are known to affect transfer is an important objective for those involved in delivering training in the

Department of the Army. A better understanding of the factors

involved in transfer of training will make it more likely that

new training programs will not only cost-effective, but also

contribute to enhanced performance of the Army's mission.

QA

.°
.

iF~~~7 UT U. 

 .

 

,I

Transfer of Training

Transfer of Training: An Interpretive Review

Transfer of training refers to the -ffect of initial task training

(i.e., Task 1) on the acquisition of a subsequent transfer task (i.e.,

Task 2). Three outcomes are possible: Task 1 training can either facilitate (positive transfer), retard (negative transfer) or have no effect on

the acquisition of Task 2.

In the past, predictions of transfer effects on applied settings have

been based on the results of basic research in learning performed within the

framework of S-R theories of behavior (e.g., Hull, 1921; Osgood, 1949;

Thorndike, 1932). This research has provided a relatively straightforward

account of transfer based primarily on the strength of interference theory

(McGeoch, 1942; Urderwood & Postman, 1960).

Despite the early interrelatedness between basic and applied research,

there has been an increasing separation between basic research in learning

and its application to transfer of training issues encountered in applied

settings (cf. Battig, 1978; Deese & Hulse, 1967). This separation is due in

part to the theoretical shift fram S-R to information processing concep- . tualizations of behavior. Thus, current research interests are not in

transfer of training but in the structures and processes involved in the .. encoding and retrieval of information during initial task acquisition and -.-- retention. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the large volume of

recent data has relevance to our understanding of transfer of training even

if this has not been its primary focus.

The aim of this paper is to review stimulus processing concepts

".-". developed during the last several decades which appear to offer fresh

insight into transfer of training results found in basic and applied research. The paper is organized around the effects of four factors viewed

" as central to the understanding of transfer of training. These factors

are: (1) the relationship between retrieval cues and encoded information;

(2) study-phase retrieval; (3) organizational strategies; and (4) performance automatization. In the final section, an analysis of proactive interference results will be made which will try to show that certain of these

information processing factors are possible underlying causes of interfer-

*O ence phenomena. Each factor is discussed in a separate section in which

supporting evidence from a variety of sources is provided.

2

.-p
Transfer of Training

Encoding and Retrieval Processes and Transfer

For Task 1 learning to influence Task 2 acquisition, it is essential

for the trainee to retrieve Task 1 information fran memory while being

trained on Task 2. The present section will discuss cuing relationships

established between Tasks 1 and 2 and their influence on the kind and

amount of transfer obtained. In other words, how does Task 2 information

serve as a retrieval cue for Task 1 material?

At the turn of the century, Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) proposed one

of the first, and most durable, theories of transfer. They suggested that

transfer fram one task to another would occur only if the two tasks

contained identical elements. Recent research on encoding and retrieval

processes offers new ways of conceptualizing this identical elements view

of transfer.

Encoding Specificity

The encoding specificity principle states that no cue can be an effective aid to an item's retrieval unless it has been encoded with that item

(Tulving, 1976). Thus, retrieval is dependent on reinstatement of the

precise way in which the item was encoded. This principle is assumed to

hold true for all testing procedures such as free recall, cued recall, or

recognition.

For example, Thason and Tulving (1970) presented to-be-remembered

(MBR) words in the canpany of weak associate cues during acquisition and

then tested recall of the TBR word using a novel (extralist) strong associate cue. As one instance, BLACK was a BR word encoded with the weak

associate train. A strong associate white was then presented to see if it

would facil-tte the recall of BLACK. It was found that when BLACK had

been encoded in the presence of the weak associate train, the strong extralist cue white was a less effective retrieval cue for BLACK than the

original weak associate.

It should be noted that encoding specificity has been supported not

only with verbal materials but also with motoric responses. A motor

response can be acquired under conditions in which one sensory modality

(e.g., vision or proprioception) is relied upon during encoding of the 'BR

criterion movement. Diewart and Stelmach (1977) showed that in this case,

reproduction (recall) is most accurate when the same modality is used at

the time of performance. Wallace (1977) showed that the limb used during

initial training and the direction of movement must also be the same for

optimal retrieval (cf. Lee & Hirota, 1980).

3

,*-.. o a. - .,. .%.%.~ ,.. o. w. o . .,. I.,. .,_% % " '' %" " ' 'V". Q " ,% ° t% " " ."
* -. - -",-- -.

Transfer of Training

Thus, encoding specificity emphasizes both the importance of the

encoding context in determining the conditions under which items can be

retrieved and the necessity of retrieval cues directly overlapping the

information encoded initially. The retrieval cue can be a copy of the TBR

item as in recognition, same co-occurring item or same attribute or dimension of the item. This last point is important because it suggests that

is is possible to retrieve an item with partial stimulus information.

Researchers have suggested that a stimulus can be conceptualized as a

collection of attributes or features (e.g., Smith, Shoben & Rips, 1974;

Underwood, 1969). Different contexts can be viewed as biasing different

features of the sane stimulus. For example, Barclay, Bransford, Franks,

McCarrell, and Nitsch (1974) had subjects learn TBR words presented in

different sentences which biased their interpretation, e.g., The PIANO was

tuned, or The PIANO was lifted, suggesting the piano as either a musical

instrument or a heavy object. Recall was better when retrieval cues suggested features that were relevant to the specific encoded aspects of the

IBR word as determined by the context. Cues which suggested other aspects

of the TBR word were less effective.

Flexser and Tulving (1978) among others have suggested that different

stimulus features vary in their redintegrative capacity. Redintegration

refers to the capacity of one part of a stimulus canplex to re-evoke or cue - the entire canplex. A stimulus feature which can usually re-evoke the

entire stimulus canplex can be considered a cue with high redintegrative

capacity while a feature which has only a low probability of reinstating

the stimulus complex can be considered to have low redintegrative capacity.

* Fbor example, the first letters of words are typically better cues than are

interior letters (Nelson, 1979). The concept of redintegration as applied

here to stimulus features is important for two reasons: first, it provides

a basis for the effectiveness of partial information in retrieving the TBR

item, and second, it helps explain why same features are more effective

than others. Variations in the encoding of TBR material will affect the

relative salience or importance of the constituent features and this will

in turn affect their redintegrative capacity (cf. Horowitz & Manelis, 1972).

P. Hagman (1978) has provided evidence for different redintegrative

values in the cues controlling discrete motor performance. Undergraduates

were instructed to learn either a distance or location cue while performing

a discrete motor response (moving a wooden element along a wooden bar). The

effects of interpolated movements which varied these cuing dimensions on

*response recall were consistent with the idea that the originally instructed

cue had acquired differential importance on cuing the response. Neither

,*.. repetition nor variation of noninstructed kinesthetic cues had an additional

effect on recall unlike the significant effect produced by manipulation of

the instructed cue (cf. Adams, 1971; Russell, 1976).

4
Transfer of Training

How do these findings and concepts provide a basis for explaining transfer of training results in the applied area? The identical elements

approach has generally focused on the correspondence of the S-R associations

exhibited in Tasks 1 and 2. However, we can provide a somewhat different

perspective by noting the importance of a correspondence between the

retrieval information present in Tasks 1 and 2 for the recovery of task

relevant material during transfer.

The literature on cued retrieval suggests that stored information is a

joint function of the way in which the material was originally encoded and

the cues or information available at the time of retrieval. To the extent

that the information stored on the first task is encoded in such a %By as to

be retrievable with the cues available on the transfer task, then we should

see positive transfer given similar responses. However, if the encoding of

Task 1 material is idiosyncratic, impoverished or otherwise incampatible

with the retrieval information present in the transfer task, we should see

little or no positive transfer.

In terms of retrieval, the redintegrative value of the available

retrieval information is the critical determinant of its effectiveness.

Transfer should be highest when the stimulus attributes with the highest

redintegrative capacity are present in Task 1 and 2. If a person learns

to make a particular response only in the presence of specific stimulus

attributes, then, retrieval of the response fram memory is highly probable only when those attributes are present. The experimental literature further

shows that the stimulus environment cannot be considered as a unitary

structure entering into an association with the verbal or motor response

camponent. Instead, certain elements or features of the stimulus can

carry a disproportionate weight in the formation of such an association.

Th the extent that particular cues add little or no redintegrative capacity

to retrieve IBR information, they should have minimal effect on transfer.

Cuing Properties of Simulators

The use of simulators to teach trainees how to operate aircraft and

other equipment has been an area of research based on the identical elements

* approach. For example, the airplane simulator is supposed to provide the

kind of environment that would be experienced by a pilot in an actual

airplane. Th the extent that the simulator has a high correspondence (more

identical elements) with the actual equipment, it can be said to possess high fidelity.

The transfer effectiveness of simulators is well established (e.g.,

Valverde, 1973; Lintern, 1980) and as Gerathewohl (1969) has noted, high

fidelity simulators specifically have demonstrated their value. Unfortu-

*. nately, high fidelity simulators are expensive to construct and the amount

5
4..

Transfer of Training

is usually directly proportional to the degree of fidelity (cf. Adams,

1978). As a result of this cost, much effort has gone into determining how much fidelity is needed, i.e., how far a simulator can deviate frcm

the actual equipment and still produce high positive transfer. Fran our

discussion, we can infer that simulator fidelity can be based on those

stimulus attributes which have high redintegrative value for the appropriate

response. Those attributes which have lower redintegrative value can be

eliminated to reduce cost without significant loss of transfer.

A consideration of these cuing relationships can help to clarify scme

of the inconsistent research findings related to the degree of fidelity

required for simulator utility which have proved refractory to analysis in

the identical elements approach. Motion has been a cuing dimension found to

exert inconsistent effects on performance (e.g., Jacobs & Roscoe, 1975; 14 Caro, 1979). One reason for this inconsistency is that different kinds of

motion (e.g., cockpit motion, rough air simulation, etc.) have different

effects. National Air and Space Administration researchers (Rathert, Creer,

& Sadoff, 1961) found a significant correlation between increased motion

and pilot performance with an unstable or sluggishly responding aircraft.

Jacobs & Roscoe (1975) found that motion cues are not useful in transfer to

aircraft that are easy to fly, however. Wilcoxon, Davy & Webster (1954)

found no significant differences between groups trained with or without

rough air motion for basic instrument and radio range procedures. Iuocco,

Vitale & Benfari (1965) showed that cockpit motion on a simulated carrier

landing task did improve performance as measured by successful landings, altitude error, and time outside the flight path.

Gundry (1977) notes that aircraft motion cues can occur either because

of pilot control (e.g., changes in direction or altitude) or because of

external forces (e.g., turbulence). He has hypothesized that motion cues

may be redundant in the case of pilot-initiated changes not only because

the pilot is already alerted to the change but also because aircraft are

designed to be as stable and easy to control as possible in normal use. In

* such a case, other stimulus information is enough to cue the appropriate

response. Disturbance induced motion cues, on the other hand, may be more

essential to pilot response when other cues (e.g., visual) are inadequate.

The motion studies mentioned above support two basic conclusions

relevant to the current information processing approach. First of all,

*O positive transfer was not a rigid function of the degree of identical

elements in Tasks 1 and 2. Similar levels of positive transfer were found

despite variations in the level of correspondence between Task 1 and 2.

Secondly, same stimulus attributes of the training environment were more

*"- important to the retrieval of TBR material than were other attributes. The

degree to which a particular stimulus attribute functioned as a retrieval

cue for current responding seemed to depend on the nature of the IBR material and the extent to which other retrieval information was available.

6
Transfer of Training

These results suggest that it is the specific relationships between

the information available at retrieval and the encoded information which is

crucial to transfer. In this view, it is not fidelity per se that contributes to high positive transfer; rather it is the presence of retrieval

information in Task 2 which has a high redintegrative capacity for the

essential Task 1 material. Low fidelity devices should be effective in

producing transfer as long as they provide the trainee with the essential

cuing relationships between the stimulus attributes of the task environment

and the appropriate responses.

Another point that can be made is that even when both a low fidelity

and a high fidelity simulator specify the most essential cuing relationships, the low fidelity device may be more effective because it contains

fewer inessential elements. The isolation of the most relevant information

should provide trainees with simpler encoding requirements in Task 1, and

increase the probability of the appropriate acquisition of the IBR material.

Improper stimulus encoding is likely when trainees are unfamiliar with the

requirements of Task 1 or 2 and when the JBR material is complex (e.g.,

Ornstein, Nichols, & Flexman, 1954; Caro, 1973).

It should be noted that decreases in simulator fidelity seem most

feasible for tasks that require fixed procedures (e.g., Baker, Cook, Warnick

& Robinson, 1964; Bernstein & Gonzalez, 1971). For example, Prophet and

Boyd (1970) found that a cockpit mockup made of plywood and photographs was

-A about as effective as instruction in the aircraft itself on tasks such as

aircraft pre-start-up, start run-up, and shut-down procedures. Grimsley

(1969) reported the results of a simulation study which examined variations

in Task 1 fidelity on operation of the control panel for the Nike-Hercules

guided missile. Low aptitude subjects were trained on either a high fidelity hot panel (physical and functional duplicate), cold panel (physical nonfunctioning duplicate) or low fidelity reproduced panel (full size artist's

representation of hot panel). Testing was conducted immediately after

training and also four and six weeks later. The results showed no significant difference in training time, initial Task 2 performance, amount

retained or retraining time as a function of task fidelity.

On the other hand, tasks in which it is difficult to identify the

. specific cues which control responding may require more fidelity in the

training situation. Salvendy and Pilitsis (1980) developed training simulators to teach suturing techniques to medical students. Three training - methods were used: electramechanical, perceptual, and a combination of *.. both. A standard instruction (lecture) group was used as controls. The

electromechanical method taught students how to puncture simulated tissue

with the aid of a mechanical device which provided auditory and visual

information on the correctness of the technique performed. The perceptual method involved watching filmed performance of both expert surgeons and

inexperienced medical students. The trainee was instructed to analyze the

:... 7
Transfer of Training

student's performance by comparing it to that of the surgeon's. The third

experimental method was simply a combination of both procedures.

The results showed that the electrmechanical and combined electromechanical perceptual groups had the highest transfer performance levels

and were essentially equivalent. The perceptual-only group's performance

was not significantly different with the control group in the number of

good sutures, although instructors did rate their performance as samewhat

higher. These results suggest that essential cuing information is provided

by the actual performance of the suturing technique which is difficult to

impart through alternative (lower fidelity) means.

We can apply the same reasoning to the studies of airplane simulators

which showed significant effects of motion on transfer performance. Simulator motion cues seemed to be most crucial to the successful transfer

on those tasks in which motion provided information as to the correct

response to be performed; information that was not present in the other

stimulus information available to the trainee. Thus, motion cues were

useful on a carrier landing task (Ruocco et al., 1965) but made little difference on instrument and radio range procedures (Wilcoxon et al., 1954).

Up to now we have considered the effects of cuing relationships on

positive transfer, however, it is possible for (inappropriate) cuing

relationships to exist between Task 1 and 2 which could lead to zero or

negative transfer. One such example would be when relevant Task 1 information has been encoded and retrieved using attributes which are not present

von Task 2, e.g., augmented feedback. Augmented feedback, or the use of

special cues which provide supplementary or augmented information concerning

responding, often facilitates Task 1 performance (e.g., Briggs, 1969;

Michelli, 1966). However, its effect on Task 2 performance is much more

variable and can produce zero or negative transfer (e.g., Bilodeau, 1952,

1969; Welford, 1968). As Welford (1968) notes, augmented feedback cannot

be expected to increase transfer when the subject cames to rely on it for

performing the correct response instead of helping the subject to observe

and better use inherent task information that will also be available in

Task 2. These and the other findings discussed previously highlight the

importance of examining and specifying the precise relationship between

the retrieval information and the encoded materials present on Tasks 1

and 2.

Although we have examined the importance of cuing relationships in

determining transfer through consideration of such phenomena as encoding

specificity, we have not specifically discussed ways of manipulating the

relationship between cues and TBR material which increase the likelihood of

positive transfer. Therefore, we will next consider one line of research

which sheds same light on this question.

8
Transfer of Training

Distinctiveness of the Cuing Relationship

Distinctiveness and Memory. Basic research of encoding and retrieval

processes involved in the initial acquisition of material has highlighted

the importance of the distinctiveness and differentiation of cue-TBR-item

associations frcn each other. Items differentiated in memory are more

likely to be retrieved given appropriate retrieval information than are

items which are not differentiated (cf. Nelson, 1979). An important point

raised by Eysenck (1979) is that distinctive material may well tend to be

processed better than non-distinctive material.

To the extent that a particular stimulus contains features which are

unique or infrequent relative to the set of items fran which it has to be

discriminated, a retrieval cue containing those features will contact that

particular item better than the others (cf. Watkins, 1979). Decreased

distinctiveness, for example, in the form of acoustic similarity between

letters or words impairs discrimination of such items (Nelson & Rowe, 1969)

and words with irregular orthographic patterns are retained better than

words that are orthographically cammon (Hunt & Mitchell, 1978; Zechmeister,

1972).

Stimulus Predifferentiation. One area of transfer research relevant

to the issue of stimulus distinctiveness is stimulus predifferentiation (SP). In SP studies analyzing transfer, individuals are typically either

simply pre-exposed to stimuli used in the training task (e.g., observation

training) or are given training emphasizing their distinctiveness (e.g.,

labeling training). During SP (Task 1) training the subject learns to

differentiate among the task stimuli and it is this knowledge which has to

be transferred to the new task; a typical measure of transfer being the

facility with which the Task 2 responses are associated with these stimuli.

In general, differential responding to different task stimuli would seem to

involve keeping the different stimuli distinct in terms of their response

implications (cf. Ellis, 1973).

Although same SP transfer research involves motor responding or applied

learning, it should be noted that the majority of studies involve more

conventional laboratory materials and tasks (e.g., verbal or pictorial

learning). Nevertheless, SP as manipulated by labeling training or

observational training have been found to accelerate the acquisition of

both discriminative verbal (Ellis, 1973) and motor responses (Arnoult, 1957).

Ellis and Muller (1964) studied SP effects using verbal labels for

random shapes. Although observation training yielded superior transfer for

recognition of simpler six-point shapes, distinctiveness pretraining was

superior for 24-point shapes. It should be noted that a large number

,. 9
Transfer of Training

of trials were provided, allowing for the observation group to locate

distinguishing features without the aid of explicit distinctive labels. * Ellis and Schaffer (1974) showed sanmewbat similar results in that pre- differentiation training was more effective with stimuli consisting of

ccinplex rardan shapes and letter matrices than it was with CCC trigrais. Similar findings have also been obtained with children (Katz & Zigler, 1969). Labeling of similar stimulus pairs was more effective in terms of

transfer with younger rather than older children; the younger children

preumalyf inding the task more dif ficult. We can, thus, see a general effet oftask difficulty on predifferentiation effectiveness.

Price and Slive (1970) have argued that the principal effect of label

relevance is to increase the probability that the representation formed at

the time of encoding will be matched by the representation given at the time of retrieval. Nagae (1980) has provided independent evidence that the * verbal labels do possess an effective discriminating function at encoding. * An experiment by Trabasso (1963) highlights the importance of emphasizing relevant features using a concept learning task. Flower patterns were the

materials used. Angle of leaf was the relevant dimension and it was

emphasized in different ways in different groups (e.g., exaggerating the

angle, adding color). The experimental groups learned faster than the control group and transferred use of the relevant feature to a new, harder

problem.

Significant transfer effects have been shown as a result of stimulus

pretraining with both discrete, discrimination-type (Posner & Keele, 1973) % 4 b %and continuous perceptual motor tasks (Wood & Gerlach, 1974). In the latter

study, the focus was on the effects of audiovisual pretraining on a

continuous perceptual motor task used in flight simulation. The pretraining consisted of the presentation of specific instruments involved in the

criterion task of take-off and controlled climb or descent. Only three

states were allowed for each instrument in pretraining, thus, permitting the discrete presentation of the relevant stimuli in the flight task. A

first measure of transfer was level of f time. Significant increases in * performance as a result of stimulus training were found late in transfer

task training. A second transfer measure was a cambination of two pitch

error scores. On this measure, significant differences between conditions t .. were evident only during the early Task 2 trials.

*5-

.Summa

The importance of the relationships between the retrieval cues available during Task 2 performance and the material encoded in Task 1 for

transfer of training has been shown in a variety of experimental and applied

- •10

5 *[. rnfrwt ugrrte hnodrcide;te ugrcide

%. prsmbyfnigtetakmr ifcl.W cnhs e eea

5- fet fts dfiutyo rdifrniainefetvns

%I Prc.n.lv 17)haeage httepinia feto ae 1, i reeac s oices tepoaiit htte1ersnaio0omda

: o te tme enodig wil b machedby he epreenttio givn a th
Transfer of Training

I

research paradigms. The conditions under which Task 1 information can be

retrieved using cues present in Task 2 are shown to be an important determinant of transfer of training in both verbal and motor learning. Positive

transfer is promoted to the extent that the cuing relationships between

the transfer task and Task 1 are distinctive and have high redintegrative

value.

These considerations are shown to be useful in analyzing applied

research, including the potential effectiveness of simulators for aircraft

and other mechanical equipment in transfer of training. Variations in

simulator fidelity to the transfer environment have led to contradictory

and ambiguous results. Analyses of these studies of simulator effectiveness

support the idea that the fidelity of a simulator to the actual instrument

\s. can be based on these attributes which have high redintegrative value for

correct responses. Those attributes which have lower redintegrative value

can be modified or eliminated without substantial loss of transfer. Addi-

* tionally, the distinctiveness of the cue-IBR-item relationship was shown -' to be an important factor in transfer studies utilizing stimulus predifferentiation techniques.

Study Phase Retrieval and Transfer

In the previous section, we examined the situation in which Task 2

retrieval information provided access to the relevant information encoded

in Task i. The IBR information was useful in more or less direct fashion

for transfer task performance. However, in different circumstances, the

information retrieved fram Task 1 can be put to other uses. If it is

campared and integrated with information that is under study, then a higher

order concept or new relation may emerge under appropriate conditions. This use of retrieved information is usually termed study-phase retrieval, in which information in a second task acts as a retrieval cue for Task 1

information necessary for a higher order integration of both items or sets

of material (cf. Jacoby, 1974; Hintzman, 1976). It should be noted that

this situation falls within the definition of transfer of training in that

Task 1 (or item 1) learning influences the way in which the transfer task

(or item) is learned (cf. Clark, 1978). In the current section, we will be

examining several kinds of transfer phenamena which involve the integration

of information over successive occurrences of related material. First, we

will examine sane of the variables influencing the integration of textual

materials. Following this, there will be an extensive analysis of the way

in which stimulus and motor variability in Task 1 training pramotes transfer

and the connection of these phenomena with the operation of an abstractive

process based on the integration of information across successive presentations of TBR material.

'.
Transfer of Training

Textual Integration

One cammon use of a study-phase retrieval process is in the processing

of prose materials as in a textbook. Information fran one sentence or

passage typically has to be campared or integrated with information fran a

prior passage. Often, the comprehension of the second passage is dependent

on retrieval of the prior encoded material. Thus, the second passage would

need to act as a retrieval cue for that information. The relationship

between the two passages can be explicit, as in verbatim repetition or

directed reference to the other passage, or it can be implied as with

anaphoric reference or ellipsis. (An example of an anaphor would be the

word so in the sentence: They are going to lunch and so are we.)

For example, Jarvella (1973) asked subjects to recall or recognize

either of the final two sentences of a recorded dialogue. There were

three conditions of textual integration of the final sentences with

prior material: implicit co-reference, explicit co-reference, and novel

(unrelated) reference. For full sentences, no co-reference led to

significantly worse recall than with either implicit or explicit coreference. For same recognition judgments, implicit co-reference produced

the highest retention; however, for minor paraphrases, the overt coreference was best. These results suggest that listeners or readers maintain some continuity between successive segments of discourse or text. It

is when a current sentence contains primarily new information and is relatively independent of the preceding sentences that the most forgetting of

the prior information occurs.

In general, it is the clarity of the reference which is the key factor

in producing comprehension or integration (Carpenter & Just, 1977; Haviland

& Clark, 1974). For example, Yekovich and Walker (1978) have shown that

more repetition of a word is of little help in integrating sentences when a

cammon conceptual representation has not also been identified. A number of

specific variables have been shown to be important in prawting reference

clarity such as the degree of linguistic correspondence between the cuing

and 'BR information (Yekovich, Walker, & Blackman, 1979) and whether or not

related items occur consecutively in the text (Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979 ).

It would be expected that the learning of a second passage containing

referents to previous material would be facilitated to the extent that

such information could be used in canprehending the transfer material.

Haberlandt and Bingham (1978) showed that certain inferences are activated

by the first sentence in a set of sentences and that subsequent sentences

are processed faster if their content is consistent with these inferences

(cf. McKoon & Ratcliff, 1980). Royer and Cable (1975) examined the pattern

of subjects' learning involving two passages dealing with scientific material (heat and electricity). For the experimental subjects the initial

12
Transfer of Training

passage contained either concrete or abstract referents for difficult

(abstract) material in the transfer passage. Control subjects received on

initial passage unrelated to the transfer material. The subjects in the

concrete-abstract condition recalled significantly more of the transfer

material than did subjects in the abstract-abstract condition or the

control-abstract condition receiving the same second passage. As the

authors note, such treatment differences are more likely when the transfer

material cannot be easily related to existing knowledge.

Study phase retrieval may be a necessary but not sufficient condition

for positive transfer to a second passage, since it is the task specific

effects of the study-phase retrieval of encoded information which are

important in a particular situation. Campione and Brown (1974) showd that

transfer on discrimination problems ws affected by the degree to which the

training format on different discrimination problems fostered integration

of the relevant information (cf. Royer, Perkins, & Konald, 1978; Sullin &

Dooling, 1974).

Stimulus Variability and Transfer

The Effects of Task Variation. One of the most studied training

factors has been the relative effectiveness of variation or stability of

Task 1 training on Task 2 performance (e.g., Hunt, Parente, & Ellis, 1974;

Schmidt, 1975). There is increasing evidence that an important factor in

the positive transfer often induced by task or item variety in training is

the operation of an abstractive process linked with study phase retrieval.

The retrieval of relevant information during the performance of the different training tasks would be used for the purpose of cmparing and abstracting the existing cammonalities or invariant relations which unite them.

The beneficial effects of variety on transfer have been demonstrated

in many different types of tasks such as free recall learning (Ellis,

Parente, & Walker, 1975), serial learning (Baker, Santa, & Gentry, 1977),

motor learning (Schmidt, 1975) and the acquisition of elementary mathematics

(Burton, Lemke, & Williams, 1975). Several applied studies have provided

evidence for the same transfer benefits fran variable conditions of initial

training. Lovaas and Simons (1969) noted improved transfer of punishment

treatment for self-destructive behavior in retarded children when punishment

was administered by several individuals as opposed to only one (cf. Wehman,

Abramson, & Norman, 1977). Hagman (in press) examined the effects of

training schedule and equipment variety on maintenance tasks retention and

transfer (e.g., electrical repairs). Although equipment variety had no

effect on basic retention, it did significantly enhance transfer test

performance when training was given under spaced conditions (i.e., one day

rest pauses).

13

0-•"v.k
Transfer of Training

These and other studies suggest that transfer is enhanced as a result

of variation in Task 1 conditions although it should be noted that the

degree of learning is an important moderating factor (e.g., Bevan, Dukes, &

Avant, 1966). For example, Morrisett and Hovland (1959) examined the

individual contributions of degree and variety of Task 1 learning on a

discrimination task. The group receiving moderate training and moderate

variety of problems was superior to the groups with high original learning

and low variety and with low original learning and high variety in that

order (cf. Gilbert, Spring, & Sassenrath, 1977).

At this point, we have seen that training variability is a factor with

important implications for transfer. The extent to which the effects of

training variability can be ascribed to the integration and abstraction of

the BR material over its successive presentations will now be considered.

Concept Formation or Abstraction. In this section we are interested in

those transfer studies which examine the way in which subjects integrate

information fram a number of events to aid abstraction and the formation of

simple concepts. Such simple concepts or prototypes are often nonverbal in

nature, consisting of geometric or other kinds of figures or patterns which

can be varied systematically on particular dimensions.

Posner and Keele (1968) trained subjects to correctly classify four

distortions each of four unseen dot pattern prototypes. The subjects were

then tested on transfer to patterns consisting of the prototypes they had

not previously seen, old previously learned distortions or control patterns

which were equated so that they had the same mean variation as the original

distortions. In the transfer task, the prototypes were classified into the

correct group significantly more often than were any of the equated control

patterns. Posner and Keele (1970) used the same test but with a delay of a

week interposed between stimulus exemplar presentation and the transfer

task. The previously unseen prototypes were "recognized" at least as well

as the four presented distortions derived fram it. Furthermore, correct

classification of the prototype showed no loss over the week while performance on the original patterns suffered significantly. Thus, extraction of

information concerning central tendency takes place during original learning

of the distorted (varied) patterns and is not thereafter mediated by them.

This result suggests that another representation has been formed which

represents the abstracted or prototypical knowledge (cf. Salthouse, 1977).

Hcma (1978) used figure drawings of ill-defined forms to further

investigate this abstractive process. Subjects initially classified 18

different patterns into three categories which contained 3, 6, or 9 members.

Following this task, a transfer test was given in which old exemplars, new

exemplars, prototype and randam patterns were presented for classification.

In another experiment, categories were defined in Task 1 by 4, 8, 16, or 32

exemplars, followed by a transfer test which contained unrelated and new

14
.~~7 

 177 TWVP 7

 77 777 

Transfer of Training

patterns based on the categories at each of six distortion levels. In both

experiments, prior training on numerous different exemplars enhanced transfer comipared with training with a few exemplars.

The importance of variability has also been emphasized in the context

of verbal learning (e.g., Martin, 1972; Battig, 1978) although there has

been conceptual disagreenent as to the basis for its effectiveness in

promoting retention and transfer. Cne viewpoint is that variable encoding

can improve retention and transfer because it provides more different ways in which to retrieve the IBR material (Madigan, 1969; Bower, 1972). This

account minimizes the importance of an abstractive process involving studyphase retrieval of prior related material and emphasizes the role of

multiple, independent representations of the TBR material.

More recent theory and data, however, have provided support for an

interpretation more consistent with the findings from the non-verbal

prototype studies considered above. The importance of the integration of

information across successive variable presentations has been demonstrated

by a number of studies of verbal retention. Johnson and Uhl (1976) showed

that repeated items which were recognized as having been presented twice,

and therefore encoded on the second presentation with reference to the

first encoding, were recalled better than those not recognized on the second

presentation (cf. Belleza, Winkler, & Andrasik, 1976). A number of studies

indicate that variations in the encoding context contribute to retention or

inferential reasoning if the different information is all grouped within a

common functional representation (e.g., Moeser, 1976; Young & Belleza,

1982).

Nitsch (1977) examined the extent to which different encoding contexts

can contribute to positive transfer in verbal concept learning. Novel

verbal concepts (e.g., minge-to gang up on someone) were defined by examples

that either were derived from one context or a number of varied contexts.

Although Task 1 learning was better in the condition using examples from

one context, transfer performance to new examples of the concepts in a

different context than previously encountered was better after varied

context training.

Battig (1978) has argued that increased contextual interference

(variability) during learning of BR material can lead to improved retention

or transfer, particularly when subjects are tested under changed conditions.

Such interference would make irrelevant contextual information, which cannot

be functionally grouped into a common representation, less likely to be

retrieved along with the TBR item. Thus, the TBR item becomes abstracted

or decontextualized. one way of producing interference between irrelevant

contextual attributes would be to increase the variability of an item's

contextual presentation; the stable attributes would gain associative

strength relative to those attributes which are constantly being varied.

15

N4 %
Transfer of Training

For example, Hiew (1977) reported improved retention and transfer in verbal

rule-learning following training under variable contextual conditions.

These studies support the idea that subjects, when sensitive to the

occurrence of related or. similar TBR material across different presentations, can integrate new material with that already in memory into a common

representation. Stimulus variability aids transfer by exerting an effect

on this process in two ways: it provides a means by which the subject can

distinguish relevant fran irrelevant attributes (abstraction) and enhances

the probability that additional relevant attributes will be encoded into

the functional representation of the TBR item. The integration of the new

material with that already in memory would necessitate same form of a study

phase retrieval process.

. Motor Variability and Transfer

The Effects of Task Variation. Variation of the exemplars or tasks

used to provide motoric training displays transfer effects similar to those

seen with verbal or cognitive tasks (e.g., McCracken & Stelmach, 1977). It

has been argued that motor schemata (prototypes) are best formed through

variable practice (e.g., Schmidt, 1975), although we should qualify this

statement by noting that abstraction will occur only to the extent that

such variability does not preclude invariances in the stimulus or motoric

parameters (cf. Zelaznik, Shapiro, & Newell, 1978).

Variable practice has been shown to produce increased transfer in

situations outside the normal range of practice (N-wel & Shapiro, 1976)

and to more persistent transfer performance on tasks within the range of

original practice (Williams & Rodney, 1978). Moxley (1974) showed similar

effects using a canplex motor task with children as subjects. Wrisberg and

Ragsdale (1979) showed that high variability of the stimulus conditions

cuing the performance of a discrete button press response reduced error

scores relative to low variability training.

In a study by Shea and Morgan (1979) Task 1 training conducted under

variable contextual conditions showed increased transfer to a second task.

The largest transfer effect ws found on the transfer task of greatest camplexity. However, it should be noted that while transfer ws improved,

initial acquisition of the first task was impaired by high contextual

variability conditions (cf. Dunham, 1977). These results mirror those

found in verbal learning (e.g., Nitsch, 1977).

There is broad evidence that variability of motor practice on Task 1 :. - is beneficial if the trainee is acquiring a motor skill performed in a

-relatively stable environment (e.g., throwing objects at fixed targets).

16

< * 
Transfer of Training

This type of task has been termed a closed skill by Poulton (1958).

Typically, studies of this kind have either varied spatial canponents of

the task such as target location (Husek & Reeve, 1979; Kelso & Norman,

1978), position of the trainee with respect to a fixed target (Moxley,

1979), movement velocity (McCracken & Stelmach, 1977), or movement time

A (Newell & Shapiro, 1976).

Less evidence is available on the effects of varied practice on open

skill acquisition and transfer in which the response must be changed according to the particular mamentary circumstances (e.g., throwing at a moving

target). The Wrisberg and Ragsdale study did show that training with varied

stimulus velocities facilitated transfer to a situation with a new response

condition. However, response variability per se was not manipulated.

Guidance vs. Discovery Training. A discrete area of perceptual motor

* research on the effects of training variability has been the investigation

of the relative effectiveness of guidance versus discovery training. Under

a guidance learning procedure, trainees are shown or told the correct .% , response in a given situation. In contrast, a discovery learning procedure

encourages trainees to self-discover the correct response by way of a trial

and error process.

In general, guidance has been reported to be either as effective

(Prather and Berry, 1970) or more effective (Singer and Gaines, 1975; Singer

and Pease, 1976) than discovery training in promoting Task 1 learning.

Transfer results, however, have not been as straightforward. For example,

same researchers have found that transfer task performance after guidance

training is either equal to (Bilodeau and Bilodeau, 1958; Holding, 1959) or

greater than it is after discovery training (MacRae and Holding, 1965,

1966) and that this superiority increases as the transfer task becames more

camplex (Holding and MacRae, 1966). In contrast, other researchers have

found that transfer is better after discovery training than after guidance

training (e.g., Prather, 1971; Singer & Gaines, 1975; Singer & Pease, 1976).

. The relative effects of guidance and discovery training appear to be a

function of whether or not subjects experience alternative movements (i .e.,

variability) during training. Usually, under guidance training only the tobe-learned movement is performed. This lack of experiencing alternative

responses promotes learning by eliminating errors and increasing the

* performance of the TBR movement (Adams & Dijkstra, 1966; Prather, Berry, &

Bermudez, 1972). By practicing the correct response subjects develop an

accurate memorial representation of the TBR movement. However, when a new

response is to be performed, such learning may not transfer readily to the

new situation.

Annett (1959) has argued that practicing only the correct response

detracts fran the subject's ability to discriminate it fram among similar

alternatives. This inability to discriminate one response fram another

17

J

m .1*.,p . -. -. - ~ . .

..%C. , % ..% ..".,.' , '. "'-o.'-'.'.. .,'.,,..,.;".,,L:' "%'o% . % .' xA..A. .,.t *% A %t.A 'i J:- % $ .5,
Transfer of Training

impedes transfer task learning. In support of this notion, MacRae and

Holding (1965) have shown that subjects who perform guided alternative

movements during training show improved final task performance campared

with subjects who were only trained on the single, to-be-learned movement.

7hus, better transfer fran discovery learning methods may be due to the

alternative movements performed during the training task. Even in one of

the studies cited previously to reveal the benefits of guidance on transfer

(Bilodeau and Bilodeau, 1958), subjects were able to experience a limited

degree of alternative movements during guidance training. This experience

may have caused the effective transfer. Thus, as suggested by Holding

(1965), it appears as though knowledge of the correct response is incomplete if there is no opportunity to define it against similar incorrect

alternatives.

The relationship of this line of research to both the abstractive

process and the encoding specificity studies would seem to be a pramising

area to investigate. Guidance training essentially relies on the correspondence of the encoded Task 1 information with particular retrieval cues

that are expected to be present in the transfer task. This method is

successful to the extent that the expected retrieval conditions can be

presumed to be consistently in effect in the transfer task. Similar effects

have been shown in the encoding specificity studies in which items encoded

with respect to one particular cue became more difficult to retrieve when

that cue is not present at the time of retrieval.

With more ccnplex transfer conditions, the discovery method may be

more likely to lead to positive transfer if it promotes the abstraction

of the most task relevant information through the variations in initial

training conditions (whether subject or experimenter generated). The

operation of abstractive processes in the integration of successive

experiences may play a critical role because errors help define the critical

dimensions of successful performance in situations in which these elements

are not easily specified to the trainee. In addition, if the information

that will be present in the transfer task cannot be precisely specified

there can be value in learning what information can safely be ignored. In

other words, contextual variability in training insulates transfer performance fran the negative effects of irrelevant contextual change between

Task 1 and 2.

Sumary

The integration of information across successive instances of related

information presentation through study phase retrieval seems to be a critical process in increasing positive transfer to novel tasks and information.

18

... ": ......... ... .. . . . . . ... - * , - . . ... -. . .- . , % - - .* .. .*.. ..- - . .-. .
Transfer of Training

The juxtaposition of different events can result in the formation of higher

order concepts, as in textual prose camprehension, or can facilitate the

abstraction of critical dimensions of task performance and stimulus recognition. This process can be accanplished through the appropriate variation

in initial training used to define the critical dimensions. The process

. seems to be applicable to both verbal and motor transfer as manifested by

the effects of variability of practice on later performance in transfer.

It was also shown to be useful in understanding the relative effectiveness

of guidance versus discovery training.

Organizational Strategies and Transfer

The discussion of abstractive processes and information integration

contained in the previous section provides a natural introduction to the

present topic which concerns the effect of organizational strategies on

transfer of training (cf. Tulving and Donaldson, 1972). Tb the extent that

previous learning provides a framework for the categorization and interpretation of new material, then transfer should be facilitated. As we shall

see, organizational variables can be a powerful influence on the learning -. of new but related tasks; however, the effect is not inevitably positive. *.* If the transfer task does not meet the organizational criteria that were

previously established, then negative transfer can occur.

Organization and Learning

It has long been noted that short-term memory (SM) places limitations

on the information processing capacity of an individual at any given time.

Techniques that can pack extra information or increase the retrieval

efficiency of items processed through STM should increase the total amount

of information that can be processed in usable form (Miller, 1956; Watkins,

1979). For example, the appropriate organization of items containing same

cammon attribute should reduce the number of retrieval cues needed to make

contact with the traces, if they are encoded so that the cammon feature is

0made salient.

Emmpirical evidence for the connection between organizational strategies

and increased recall of word or number lists has been available for same

time (e.g., Bousfield, 1953; Cohen, 1963; Birnbaum, 1975), at least where

clear and distinct categorical relationships exist between the target items.

Organization seems to exert its effect through the linking of multiple items

-.." 19

ou
-i

Transfer of Training

to higher order control elements or categories. However, the categories

themselves are treated as any other item in memory would be (Cohen 1963;

Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966).

The same kind of organizational effects can be seen with prose passages

as well as word lists. Buschke and Schaier (1979) showed that text-based

story recall involved the retrieval of distinct memory units which are

clustered together. The recall units correspond with the propositional

units of the story and the organization of recall corresponds to the

propositional structure. Thus, story recall involves the recall of pro-

*positional units organized by a story schema (cf. Thorndyke, 1977). Thus,

- there seem to be parallels in the organizational strategies used with prose

materials with that of word lists, indicating their general mnemonic utility. one other indication of this generality is the apparent equivalence

of instructions to organize materials and instructions to recall (Mandler,

1967).

Schemata and Transfer

Schemata are generally defined as integrated sets of procedural and

content knowledges concerning a particular dcmain which guide the encoding

of new information and enhance its retention. The concept of the schema

and its use in processing new information has been proposed by a large

number of researchers (e.g., Anderson, Kline, & Beasley, 1979; Bobrow &

1975). In a real sense, the use of schemata or sNorman, other organizational

strategies can often be regarded as a transfer variable even when Task 1

learning is considered, since typically the schema or organizational

framework has already been acquired before its effect is measured on Task 1.

Positive Effects. As we would expect fran the studies of organizational strategies considered in the previous section, the use of schemata

can enhance positive transfer to the acquisition of new, but relevant

information (cf. Frase, 1975). A study by Chiesi, Spilich, & Voss (1979)

provides a good example of the facilitated learning of damain relevant

information associated with the use of an appropriate schema. Subjects

with different levels of baseball knowledge were given passages of damain

relevant information and then tested on retention of the new information.

High-knowledge subjects had a higher probability of recognizing the IBR

material, particularly when such information was important in terms of

their other damain-relevant knowledge. In addition, these subjects needed

less contextual information to make correct recognition judgments than did

low-knowledge subjects and were superior at recalling event sequences. This latter effect was due to their greater capacity to relate successive

segments of input information.

20
Transfer of Training

Studies of expert chess players have shown that they possess a high

capacity to retain novel arrangements of chess pieces on the chessboard

that are consistent with the general requirements of sound play. However,

their memory for randcm arrangements of the chess pieces is no better than

-. the non-expert subject (Chase and Simon, 1973). These studies suggest a

close connection, incidentally, between the usefulness of a schema in a -. .particular situation and its capacity to aid study phase retrieval of

relevant information while new information is being processed.

one line of research into this question has been the examination of

the effects of advance organizers, pre-questions, and other organizational

aids in the learning of new educational material. The purpose of these

various procedures is to provide the trainee with a schema which can be

used to facilitate the integration and comprehension of the material.

Advance organizers provide abstract higher order information relative to

the passages to be learned (cf. Ausubel and Fitzgerald, 1962; Ausubel,

1977). The objective is to permit the hierarchical organization of less

inclusive concepts and information encountered in the text under appropriate

super-ordinate concepts.

For example Mayer and Bramage (1980) had subjects read a text concerning a new ccaputer programming language. One group was provided with an

advance organizer passage which provided a higher level framework for

interpreting the new material while another group was given the organizer -- after reading the text. The advance organizer group demonstrated higher

recall of conceptual idea units and made more novel inferences. The after

group did score higher on the recall of technical idea units however.

Similar results have been reported using television instruction (Nugent, Tipton & Brooks, 1980) or oral instruction (Alexander, Frankiewicz & .-. Williams, 1972).

Negative findings concerning the usefulness of advance organizers have

also been reported (e.g., Graber, Means, & Johnston, 1972). This is not

* particularly surprising given the canplexity of the relation between

schemata which are essentially as novel to the subject at the time of

their presentation as the target material itself. In real-life situations,

schemata would more generally be built up over a relatively extended period . of experience with a particular damain of material.

. Native Effects. Although schemas have been shown to facilitate

-. acquisition of new material in a variety of situations, such positive

. transfer is not invariable. With respect to the organizational strategies ..-. discussed in the previous section, one consistent finding has been that

while information consistent with the schema does show facilitated learning,

incidental- or schema- incongruent material is actually learned less well

than it would be in the absence of the schema. Fbr example, Dee-Lucas and

DiVesta (1980) examined subjects' acquisition of textual material presented

21

* % *o*",* -
Transfer of Training

in different contexts, i.e., with topic sentences, headings, related

sentences or unrelated sentences. Subjects either generated these contexts

or had them provided. The organization of the materials, particularly when

generated by the subject, resulted in organization-relevant information

being learned well, but at the expense of incidental information. The

presentation of cues or instructional objectives has the same effect on

relevant versus incidental (or cue-irrelevant) learning (Rothkoph & FKether,

1978; Frase & Kreitzberg, 1975).

Interestingly, research on the transfer of problem solving behavior

shows similar effects when the problems are organized to prCmote a particular problem solving method. For example, facilitated learning can occur

when subjects are given a series of related problems of graded difficulty

proceeding fron simple to canplex (Sweller, 1976). However, a deficit in

problem solving termed "Einstelling" (failure to appropriately change a

mental set or schema) can occur when a simple but different problem is

substituted for the last of a series of related problems. Sweller and Gee

(1978) showed that such negative transfer could be abolished by providing

the subject with a clear change in the perceptual cues between the last

different problem and the previous problems. In other words, the subject

is alerted that the schema that has been used may no longer be appropriate

(cf. Weisberg, DiCamillo, & Phillips, 1978).

Motor Schemata

Schema concepts have been applied to motoric behavior as well as to

verbal-symbolic materials although the definition of the term necessarily

is scmewhat different in certain details (e.g., Schmidt, 1975; Newell &

Shapiro, 1976; Pew, 1974). Motor schemata refer to a class of actions and

the abstract prototype increment of that class which supplies the essential

response invariants to each action within the class. According to Schmidt

(1975) the schema contains information about the initial conditions, response specifications, response outcome, and sensory consequences of the

movement.

Evidence for generalized motoric patterns has been obtained with a

number of different types of movements. Shapiro, Zernicke, Gregor, & Dostel

(1981) reported that walking behavior displays a number of invariant

elements frcm instance to instance, particularly in the relative timing of

particular movements. Similar invariant timing relationships have been

found in typing (Terzuolo & Viviani, 1979) and lever rotation (Shapiro,

1976). For example, in typing, the relative timing between letters in a

word is constant for professional typists, regardless of the context of

the word and the speed with which the word is typed (cf. Turvey, 1977).

22

.1'
Transfer of Training

Zelaznik, Shapiro, and Newell (1978) provided evidence that subjects

develop a rule relating sensory consequence to outcame which is then used to

generate a reference for correct performance. For example, if subjects

generate a motor recognition schema rather than simply storing all feedback

traces separately, then the subjects receiving varied relevant experience

should have better transfer performance than those receiving constant

experience. In Task 1, subjects experienced movement produced auditory

feedback by listening to the taped sound of a rapid timing task, in which

rods were moved on a linear trackway. Then, they were were tested on

transfer to the actual timing task. The transfer results showed that

subjects who received listening experience with the criterion movement time

did not exhibit lowr error scores than did subjects who received a narrow

or wide range of listening experience without ever hearing the criterion

movement time. In addition, performance deteriorated over trials with the - constant experience group while the variable groups maintained their

performance throughout the trials (cf. Kelso & Norman, 1977; McCracken &

Stelmach, 1977).

Livesey and Laszlo (1979), in studying discrete tracking tasks, have

suggested that the strategy adopted in the first task is important to the

degree of transfer obtained. This point is relevant to the observation

that organization or schemata facilitate transfer on congruent tasks but

retard such performance on incongruent tasks. Fumato (1981) gave experi- mental groups two tracking tasks, one of which involved far and near movements at short regular intervals while the other involved such movements

at irregular, longer intervals of practice. Positive transfer was observed

fran the irregular to the regular conditions but not vice versa because

the strategy used for the regular task could not be applied to the irregular

task. This was not the case in the irregular to the regular condition.

Part-Whole Transfer

In this section we will consider the impact of organizational variables

on part-whole transfer. As we found previously with other paradigms,

organization can have positive or negative effects on part-whole transfer.

Incanpatible organization between the initial part learning (Task 1) and

the whole task (Task 2) can lead to negative transfer while canpatible

organization promotes transfer.

Tasks themselves can be said to be organized if their parts blend

together into an integrated whole such as in simulated flying of an aircraft

or aiming a rifle. A task is called unorganized when its parts constitute

self-contained independent subdivisions such as in maintenance tasks.

Naylor and Briggs (1963) showed that when a task is highly organized, any

t 23
.,,* Transfer of Training

attempt to divide it up into parts tends to destroy the continuity of

individual actions and therefore part training can result in negative

transfer to the whole task. For an unorganized task in which parts are

independent, this is not a problem, at least when task difficulty is

sufficient to justify training one part at a time (Briggs & Waters, 1958;

Singer, 1975).

In general, tasks with low levels of difficulty show a corresponding

benefit in whole as opposed to part training, presumably because the

organization of the task into same coherent unit is typically made easier

in such circumstances. Perhaps for the same underlying reason, adults who

are more intelligent and have more task-related experience often show more

transfer after whole than part training (McGuigan and McCaslin, 1955). In

addition as training continues, whole practice is increasingly likely to

result in positive transfer (Naylor, 1962).

The influence of organization in part-whole transfer has been examined

more analytically in verbal learning (e.g., Sternberg and Tulving, 1974). '.'-Typically, such studies have employed successive word lists which subjects - have to free recall. The experimental group learns two lists of words in

which the second contains same items fran the first list randanly mixed in

with the new items. The control group learns two unrelated lists. Tulving .. (1966) found that although the experimental group recalled more items on - the initial trials of List 2 learning, the control group eventually surV. passed them. Intuitively, it would be expected that if subjects have

.,. already learned half the words of the whole list during List 1 learning,

then learning the whole list should be easier than if new words fran the

whole list were learned in List 1. Tulving argued that subjects grouped

words into subjective organizational units during List 1 learning and that .. these units may not have been applicable to the whole second list. The

reorganizational process requires added time and offsets any individual

advantage due to the prior learning of specific whole-list words during part-list training (cf. Bower and Lesgold, 1969).

More recent research has shown that the magnitude of the negative

transfer can be affected by manipulations which tend to make part-list

organization either more or less compatible with the whole list. Fr

example, informing the subjects of the relationships between part and whole

lists (Novinski, 1972; Petrich, 1973), using blocked rather than randan

O . presentation of part list items during whole list (List 2) learning *. -. (Crnstein, 1970) and simultaneous rather than successive part and whole

list item presentation (Elmes et al., 1972) all decrease negative transfer.

Presumably each procedure allows subjects to maintain or create campatible

interlist organizations. Cn the other hand, the probability of negative

transfer increases as degree of part-task learning increases (Elmes,

* Greener, & Wilkinson, 1972).

24

.. . . . . ".
Transfer of Training

Schulz and Gorfein (1976) showed that negative transfer is produced

when the subject attempts to include new itens into the old organization.

When the subject organizes the whole list into separate parts corresponding

to old and new items, then positive transfer occurs. It is highly possible

that one of the subjects' difficulties lies in discriminating old fran new

terms (Schwartz and Humphreys, 1973). This may particularly be the case

when material is presented in cumulative fashion and there is limited

opportunity to organize the part-list material (Rundus, 1978).

In essence, the results of verbal part-whole transfer research show

that interference between organizational structures developed during

successive part-whole list learning leads to negative transfer. When

interference occurs, whole task learning is more effective than part task

learning. If interference is prevented, part task learning can be as

effective or even more effective than whole task learning. These findings

may be a reflection of the general tendency of organization to proWte the

acquisition of information congruent with the schema being used and retard

the acquisition of irrelevant or incongruent information that we saw with

the use of advance organizers and other such procedures.

Summary

_. Organizational processes are powerful aids to the learning of new

information to the extent that the transfer task can be related effectively

to the organizational plan or schema in use. A schema can be regarded as a

set of procedural and content knowledges concerning a particular dcmain of

material. Schemata can facilitate both verbal and motoric learning. The

use of schemata produces several negative effects on transfer learning.

Schema-irrelevant or incongruent information will often be learned less

well than if no schema were being used. In addition, transfer material

0 which requires a different schema than the one used on Task 1 will often

lead to negative transfer because the subject will spend time trying to fit

the new information into an inappropriate schema or try to modify the old

schema to fit the new material.

Automatization of Performance and Transfer

In this section we will examine same of the properties of autcmatized

encoding and responding and their implications for transfer performance.

Cne of the most cammon findings in the training literature is that increased

25
Transfer of Training

practice almost always leads to improved performance, in terms of both

quality and speed (e.g., Newell & Rsenbloaii, 1981). It has been widely

suggested that skilled performance is due in large part to a decrease in

the total amount of attentional capacity that must be devoted to a task and

to an increase in the efficiency of responding through the removal of unnecessary elements (e.g., Adams, 1971; Kahneman, 1973). For the most part

we will focus on the stimulus processing aspects of automated performance.

The mechanisms by which reductions in attentional capacity can be made

without reducing performance have not been completely specified; however,

there is substantial evidence that as stimuli became increasingly familiar,

they are more likely to be recognized before entering working or short-term

memory. The processing of highly familiar stimuli is believed to occur in

what is termed a pre-attentional processing stage (e.g., Bgeth, 1977;

Shiffrin & Schreider, 1977). Such pre-attentive processing has at most a

minimal effect on the available resources of working memory so that the

individual can process other information simultaneously without deficit.

There are two implications for transfer performance given the accuracy

of the above account. First, there should be a high degree of positive

transfer to those stimuli in Task 2 which have become automatized in Task 1.

Secondly, the reduction of processing effort to a part of the stimulus

environment should permit the performance of more complex tasks whose

requirements would overwhelm working memory if all processing had to go through it. At this point, we will now concentrate on the specific characteristics of automatized processing as it is acquired and utilized by the

subject.

Characteristics of Automatized Processing

Develoment of Automatization. Autamatized processing seems to develcp only under particular conditions. Increasing practice or stimulus

familiarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for automatization

to develop. It is critical that there also be consistency of practice or

stimulus presentation (Schneider and Fisk, 1982). For example, in visual

search experiments in which the subject must look for particular items

0 (targets) in an array or field of irrelevant stimuli, large increases in

performance speed are found when the same targets are used consistently

over different trials (e.g., Neisser, 1963; Logan, 1979). The occurrence

of parallel search and processing of stimuli by subjects is indicated by

the findings that set size functions (i.e., the number of targets and the

time it takes to find them) tend toward zero as practice becames extended.

On the other hand, if the targets are changed fran trial to trial, then

automatized encoding does not seem to develop even after prolonged practice

(Kristofferson, 1972).

26

.V
*.5-..

Transfer of Training

Fisk and Schneider (1981) showed that both qualitative and quantitative

differences existed in stimulus processing in consistent as opposed to

variable stimulus search conditions. Under vigilance conditions, variable

target search was characterized by serial and effortful processing while

consistent target search ws parallel and easy in the sense that it did not

overly tax the resources of working memory. Stimulus detection sensitivities dropped significantly under consistent but not under variable search

conditions.

In a recent experiment, Salthouse and Scmberg (1982) have shown that

while the initially most difficult processing conditions show the greatest

improvement in response times, such gains in responding can also be seen in

simple tasks of signal detection or visual discrimination. As the authors

note, these findings indicate that increases in skill can occur even with

very basic information processing activities. Thus, skill acquisition

* cannot be ascribed entirely to indirect factors such as improvements in the

coordination or timing of such elenents in the overall task.

Automatization and Changes in Cue Utilization. One consistent finding

in the literature concerning the effects of extended practice is that

changes in the subject's utilization of various cues controlling responding

typically occur over the course of training. For example, in perceptualmotor tasks such as tracking, subjects typically rely heavily on visual

cues during initial training. As training progresses, however, more use is

made of proprioceptive and other internal cues (Fleishman and Rich, 1963).

Trumbo, Ulrich, & Noble (1965) showed that more specific visual cuing

enhanced initial learning on a pursuit tracking task but had little effect

on the final levels of criterion performance or on delayed (30-day) retention (cf. Johnson, 1981).

Such changes in the cues which control responding or stimulus proces- sing presumably occur in the direction of stimulus attributes which are

more useful (i.e., more distinctive and correlated) in identifying the

stimulus or directing the response to occur. Kessel and Wickens (1982)

showed that monitors of automatic pursuit displays who had prior experience relied upon different perceptual cues in making signal detection responses

campared with naive subjects. Koonce (1974) showed that motion cues in

simulators were more important to experienced pilots' performance although they did not enhance transfer from the simulator to the aircraft. ibis

effect is probably due to the greater correspondence of the simulator motion

cues to the cues pilots use or are familiar with in actually flying the

aircraft. 7hus, their absence in the simulator can lead to sane performance

deficits since the pilot must make use of less favored cues. In addition,

if we follow the logic of encoding specificity, there will be a less precise

match between the encoded characteristics of the memory trace and the

available retrieval information.

.2

.,.'.',,,-,~ ,. .".--.-"'. i - v -'.'.'''.'. -0. - .. . ..- ,".. "" " .". .,". . , ,- " " . "-" . .- -- "• .- -". - " 

. "-"" . . .. " ""27" ,. . . . %
Transfer of Training

Christina and Anson (1981) showed that progressively less stimulus

feedback fram visual or kinaesthetic cues is used as practice is extended

for response movements which can be performed on other bases. Visual feedback had a positive effect on learning to initiate a positioning response

only during initial acquisition. The subject in this situation could rely

on a particular motor program or schema. However, with a response involving

movement extent which ws less susceptible to control by a motor schema, visual feedback exerted a positive influence on both early and late periods

of initial acquisition as well as during transfer (cf. Adams, Gopher, & Lintern, 1977).

As these studies indicate, changes in cue utilization occur over the

.- course of extended practice which can affect transfer under the appropriate

circumstances. To the extent that the subject in Task 1 attends more

strongly to the most functional stimulus information, transfer should be

enhanced to other tasks in which responding can also be controlled by

these cues. In addition, the control of responding through the use of

proprioceptive or other internal cues would seem to insulate the subject in

many situations fran variations in the stimulus conditions in which the

behavior must be performed.

Stimulus Specificity of Transfer with Automatized Processing

5,

In the previous section we saw how extended practice in appropriate

situations could result in changes in cue utilization from exteroceptive to

internal sets of cues to control responding. Nevertheless, in many cases,

autanatized performance still is controlled by the occurrence of specific

exteroceptive stimulus information. Thus, the question arises as to the

degree to which transfer of automatized training is specific to the stimuli

trained in Task 1. Actually, the weight of evidence seems to indicate

that the generalizibility of autanatized training is somewhat narrower

than are other types of Task 1 training.

Schneider and Fisk (Note 1) showed high transfer of automatized

processing to stimuli in the same class as the original stimuli. Subjects

were trained under consistent conditions to detect words fran a particular

category such as colors. After extended training, subjects were presented

with novel words fran the same category and showed high (92%) transfer fran

the old to the new words (cf. Rass, 1970; Schaffer and LaBerge, 1979).

Nevertheless, the similarities between the original and the transfer

task must be substantial, at least on those dimensions that have becane

automatized, for such positive transfer to be demonstrated. Slight changes

in the processing conditions during dual task performance, on which one or

28
Transfer of Training

both camponents have been autamatized, for example, typically disrupts such

performance initially (Schneider, 1982; Logan, 1979). Eberts and Schneider

(1980) had subjects detect a sequence of three discrete movements of a line

segment. Although autanatic processing developed after consistent training

to a particular sequence, when the pattern was spatially rotated, the degree

of transfer was no greater than after variable training, which does not

produce autcatized encoding.

There is contradictory evidence on whether autamatized processing can

be maintained to one canponent on the transfer task if other camponents are

different from Task 1. For example, conjunction searches, in which a

subject must search for a stimulus with two particular attributes (e.g., a

red triangle or a green square) do not seem to be autamatized to the same

degree as searches for stimuli with a single critical dimension (Treisman

and Gelade, 1980). On the other hand, Schneider and Fisk (in press) have

shown that automatized processing can occur to task components that have

consistent requirements even if there are other task canponents that are

not consistent. In general, there seems to be at least an initial deficit

in performance even with small changes in the transfer task.

Interestingly, the transfer deficits to different stimuli became

greater when stimulus training is extended in Task 1 (Salthouse & Samberg,

1982). This effect suggests that autamatized encoding can lead to reduced

generalization and positive transfer if extended too long. The automatized

processing becames stimulus-specific to such an extent that almost any

stimulus change results in the disruption of such processing (cf. Graboi,

1971; Heimer & Tatz, 1966).

The stimulus specificity of autamatized processing can also create more

subtle deficits in transfer. Eriksen and Eriksen (1974) showed that reaction times were slowed when irrelevant flanking stimuli were present that

were similar to the automatized stimuli even though consistent training

occurred only with the latter. The subjects could not stop processing the

irrelevant stimuli even when instructed to do so. Shiffrin and Schneider

(1977) also found that subjects were unable to stop processing consistently trained stimuli although they were able to do so with variably trained

stimuli. In other words, once stimuli or responses became automatized it

may be difficult (although not necessarily impossible) to inhibit such

processing or responding when conditions change (cf. Eriksen and Schultz,

1979).

Friedman (1978) presented subjects with target pictures containing

objects which the subject expected or didn't expect to be represented. The

subjects had to discriminate the pictures fram difficult distractor pictures. Autamatized encoding did seem to occur with the expected objects

which were apparently processed on the basis of global physical features.

On the other hand, unexpected objects elicited more controlled processing;

29

-4.2
0

Transfer of Training

for example, fixations to unexpected objects were roughly twice as long as - -to the expected objects. The autcmatized encoding of expected objects had

the negative effect of leading to less detection of missing expected objects

or cases in which one expected object was replaced with another expected

object. Friedman noted that two events which constitute the same class to

the subject may be indistinguishable in automatic encoding (cf. Kolers,

1975).

These findings suggest that the autanatization of processing is

characterized by a reduction in the amount of information processed about a

given stimulus. Presumably, only those attributes which are most highly

correlated with the stimulus are processed. However, if other stimuli are

presented which share these attributes but differ on others, there may be a

failure to note the change because of the more superficial stimulus analysis

which the subject is performing. In other words, there is inappropriate

transfer from Task 1 training.

In the next two sections, we will examine the implications that

automatized processing holds for two other types of transfer phenomena. First, we will analyze the influence of relative task difficulty on transfer

between related tasks; and second, we will take a look at time sharing or

dual task performance.

Task Difficulty and Transfer

Transfer between easy and difficult versions of particular tasks is

often asymmetric; that is, more positive transfer will be found fram one

training sequence (easy-difficult or difficult-easy) than fran the other.

It has been suggested that asynetrical transfer occurs when same aspects

of a task are learned more easily at a particular difficulty level than are

0 other aspects (Leonard, Normes, Oxendine, & Hesson, 1970).

The way in which a particular task is difficult to perform may be the

crucial factor in determining the form and direction of the asymnetrical

transfer. In this regard, the concept of changes in cue utilization by the

subject as training progresses may provide same insight into these transfer

phenomena. Difficult tasks which force the subject during practice to make

use of more efficient and relevant cues can act to increase transfer to

easier tasks which permit less efficient cue utilization. Cn the other

hand, difficult tasks which simply are beyond the information processing

capacities of the subject at the time of acquisition will have no such

effect on transfer. In the latter case, more transfer should be seen fram

an easy to difficult training sequence.

30

%. ° . . *.~- *- * , * *%*~* - ~ -~
Transfer of Training

Fbr example, in cross-modal transfer studies, greater transfer from

the more difficult task to the easier task is generally found (Von Wright,

1970). Butter (1979) trained 30 boys in a scanning strategy on the (visual)

Matching Familiar Figures Test and on the Haptic Matching Test. The latter

test is generally considered to be more difficult (Wolfgang, 1971).

Subjects who were visually trained exhibited decreased errors only on the

Familiar Figures Test and actually showed increased latencies on both

tasks. However, haptically trained subjects showed decreased errors on

both tasks.

This is not a uniform effect in other situations, however. Boswell

and Irion (1975) studied transfer along a difficulty dimension using a

rotary pursuit task. More transfer was shown in the training sequence in

which training was given at 55 RPM and the final test was at 60 RPM than

vice versa. The authors note that the optimal training speed is one that

is slightly lower than the test speed because relatively less is learned at

the faster speed.

This latter observation is a key point. As Miller (1972) notes, in

many tracking tasks there is positive transfer fram lower to higher order

systems but not vice versa. In lower order systems the person directly

moves the indicator while in higher order systems the effect of control

movements is on rate or acceleration. In such systems, the effects of

movements are not imediately apparent. The difficult higher order systems,

if encountered too early, may simply remove the person fram the learning

condition. In other words, the subject is not able to process the necessary

information in any kind of usable form (cf. Cote & Schaefer, 1981).

In the cross-modal studies, however, it seems likely that the more

difficult initial conditions act to encourage greater learning by demanding

more attentional effort on the part of the subject in a situation in which

such additional processing will result in more learning. In these

situations, difficult-to-easy transfer is seen because the subject has

presumably learned to process the relevant stimulus information more efficiently. Thus, the way in which a particular task is difficult to perform

may be the crucial factor in determining the nature of transfer between

easy and difficult tasks.

Dual Task Performance

One implication of autanatized stimulus processing is that the reduction of attentional resources devoted to one task makes the simultaneous

performance of a second task more feasible. In the most favorable case,

a fully autamatized task should permit the performance of a second task

31
Transfer of Training

(not incanpatible with the first) without deficits in either of the tasks

(cf. Rieck, Ogden, & Anderson, 1980; Eriksen and Spencer, 1969).

There have been several studies showing that after extensive practice

dual task performance can display no appreciable deficit on either task,

such as reading and dictation (Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976), flying an

airplane while digit cancelling (Colb & DeMaio, 1978) and typing while

shadowing prose (Shaffer, 1975). Similar effects have been found in

dichotic listening tasks in which subjects wear earphones and different

stimuli are simultaneously presented in the different channels. After

consistent training, subjects can follow both channels at the same time as

long as target stimuli are not simultaneously present (Duncan, 1980). It

should be noted that dual task performance on dichotic listening tasks

will show decrements if one of the tasks has not become automatized (e.g.,

Treisman, 1969).

A somewhat different viewpoint of dual task performance is held by

same researchers (e.g., Hirst, Spelke, Heaves, Charock, & Neisser, 1980)

who argue that time sharing is a specific attentional ability which can be

trained in individuals to increase their capacity to engage in dual task

performance. Freedle et al., (1968) showed that dual task performance was

a function not only of constituent task performance but also of a time

sharing attentional ability (cf. Fleishman, 1965; Jennings and Chiles,

1977).

A number of studies have demonstrated improvements in time sharing

capacity after training (e.g., Damos, 1977; Gopher and North, 1974, 1977).

Gabriel and Burrows (1968) examined the effects of such training in an

applied setting. Pilots given time sharing training showed enhanced

performance on flying simulation tasks. Beick et al. (1980) showed that in tracking tasks, single task performance contributed little to subsequent

dual practice performance. However, dual practice performance was found to

be a major determinant of dual task performance.

The extent to which time sharing training is more important to transfer

on dual tasks than autamatization of one or both of the task ccnmponents may

well depend on the nature of the task. As we saw previously, same tasks

have encoding and retrieval characteristics which lend themselves better to

part learning than other tasks. As the Freedle et al. study suggests, both

factors may be involved in varying degrees in the same task situation.

32

-* . *. ." . ... .. . . . ... . . . C.i..;... . . " .... . . ' \Q: * ., . " ".,'_."..-, * -. .', - ... ' -. -. ,. '.,.. .
b-77-q

Transfer of Training

Summary

Automatized performance can occur after extended consistent practice

with particular cues or responses. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist between autcmatized performance and performance that is not autanatized, both in terms of the effect required to process and respond to cues

and in the nature of the performance itself. Changes in the utilization

of the cues controlling responding have been shown to occur over the course

of training in a variety of perceptual-motor tasks, for example. Such

changes usually occur in the direction of more efficient stimulus processing

or motor performance. As a consequence, transfer can be affected by the

relationship of the particular cues utilized in Task 1 and in the transfer

task. In addition, the more efficient performance on tasks can permit time

sharing activities or the simultaneous performance of two tasks. Autamatized performance tends to be highly specific to the elements consistently

presented in original training. Thus, there may be little transfer to

other elements that differ in same way fran those that have became automatized. In addition, it can be difficult to suppress inappropriate autamatized performance in transfer environments if the controlling cues are

presented.

Proactive Interference and Information Processing

A significant amount of transfer research has been conducted in order

to test different interference theories of retention and forgetting, investigating either the retroactive effects of Task 2 learning on Task 1 retention or the proactive effects of Task 1 learning on Task 2 acquisition

and retention (Osgood, 1949; Underwood & Postman, 1960). Since we are

concerned with the transfer of training, we will concentrate on proactive

effects of Task 1 learning on Task 2 acqusition and retention, more

specifically, the proactive interference (PI) that can result between the

two tasks. It should be emphasized at the outset that the aim of the

present section is simply to demonstrate the relevance of same of the

information processing factors discussed previously to the phencmenon of

PI, and is not a review of interference research per se.

PI is generally defined as increases in the time or error rate involved

in Task 2 acquisition (i.e., negative transfer) or as increased forgetting

of Task 2 material as a result of Task 1 practice. Most of the evidence

for PI has been found with verbal materials; very little evidence for

negative transfer using motor responses has been found (cf. Bilodeau &

Bilodeau, 1961). The motor PI that does occur is often quickly converted

33
Transfer of Training

into positive transfer. It should be noted, on the other hand, that the

degree of positive transfer between different motor tasks is generally not

large due to the differences between such tasks (Adams, 1954).

PI is often studied in an A-B, A-D procedure in which different (verbal

or motor) responses are successively learned to the same stimulus. The

amount of negative transfer is usually assessed by comparing the A-B, A-D

group's performance with a control group's performance on an A-B, C-D

procedure. Actually, negative transfer is difficult to show if an overall

decrement in performance is taken as its definition since the A-B, A-D

group often performs better on the A-D list than a control group with no

Task 1 learning (cf. Deese & Hulse, 1967; Bilodeau & Bilodeau, 1961).

PI has more meaning as an important factor in applied settings if we

define it as the degree to which inappropriate intrusions of previously

learned responses occur in the transfer situation (cf. Holding, 1976). In

verbal learning, for example in the A-B, A-D paradigm, an intrusion would

be to respond with the "B" term while learning the secc.v list in which the

"D" term is now appropriate. Intrusive errors can create significant

dangers in applied settings if same inappropriate response occurs at a

critical moment (e.g., while flying an airplane).

Interestingly, current explanations of PI center around two factors,

list differentiation (LD) and encoding deficits, with relationships to same

of the information processing factors discussed previously. LD refers to

the distinctiveness in memory between what was learned in Task 1 and Task 2.

The greater the distinctiveness of the material between the two tasks, the

smaller the expected amount of PI. Encoding deficits refers to the possibility that increases in the familiarity or experience with a task lead to

changes in the way similar material is encoded.

List Differentiation and PI

As we saw in the first section of the paper, the distinctiveness of

the cue-IBR relationship between Task 1 and Task 2 is an important factor

in the retrieval of information from memory. To the extent that PI is the result of interference or competition frm incmpatible responses, manipulations which affect the differentiation of Task 1 and Task 2 should also

affect PI levels. Deese and Marder (1957) showed that increases in

between list errors were found when a long delay was interposed before

final testing after presenting subjects with two lists of words to learn. These errors were presumably due to a decrease in the relative temporal

separation between the lists (cf. Belleza and Schirmann, 1975; Runquist and

Runquist, 1977). PI is greatly reduced when Task 1 learning is widely

34
Transfer of Training

distributed over time (Underwood and Ekstrand, 1966; 1967). This finding

can explain the lack of interference in verbal laboratory studies fran

prior verbal experience outside the laboratory which is gained under wide

distribution of practice. Repeating some of the first list responses in

the second list greatly reduces the advantage of such distributed practice.

Postman (1962) examined the effects of different response relations in

producing negative transfer. Subjects wre tested on an A-B, A-D procedure and their performance campared with that found on an A-B, A-Br procedure.

In the latter procedure, the same responses are used on both lists but are

rearranged with different stimulus terms on the second list. This procedure

involves a more difficult differentiation situation. As measured against

an A-B, C-D control group, negative transfer was demonstrated in both

conditions but was higher in the A-B, A-Br condition. In the A-B, A-Br

procedure, greater negative transfer was a function of increasing practice

* on the first list.

" It should be noted that item specific PI has been found as well as

interference between lists (e.g., Russ-Eft, 1979). It is unclear whether

item-specific and list-specific PI are the result of different processes or

- . are the same differentiation problem at different levels of organization.

The relation between LD and PI has also been investigated in shortterm retention studies. Perhaps best known are the release from PI studies - conducted by Wickens and his associates (e.g., Wickens, 1972; Gardiner

et al., 1972; Wickens et al., 1981). For example, in the Gardiner et al.

(1972) study, subjects ware given a number of Brown-Peterson trials with

item fram one of several categories. It was consistently found that PI

built up rapidly when items were all fram the same category. However, a

shift between different categories provided a reduction in PI (e.g.,

garden flowers versus wild flowers). Bird (1977) showed that a shift fram

semantic to structural processing or vice versa produced more release fran

PI than did shifting fran one semantic task to another. Similarly, no

*release fram PI was obtained with two related structural tasks (Bird and

Roberts, 1980).

The concept of LD as an important determinant of PI may provide insight

into the lack of interference effects in motor transfer. As we noted at

the outs& t, the study of perceptual-motor responding has long found important differences in retention and forgetting of such responses when compared

with verbal-symbolic material. For example, Jahnke and Duncan (1956) showed

no evidence of a retention loss over a four-,wek retention interval. Barch

and Lewis (1954) showed that it was extremely difficult to produce in

perceptual-motor performance the kinds of RI and PI found in verbal learning

(cf. Bilodeau, Jones & Levy, 1964).

35

" N"
Transfer of Training

One possible explanation for these differences between motor and verbal

responses may be in the relative distinctiveness of each. The quantity and

similarity of much verbal-symtbolic material can be seen to place a tremendous burden on the memory system. Humans try to remember an enormous

amount of very detailed information which is often quite similar in character, use, or form to other information. This is not true to nearly the

same extent with motor learning (cf. Adams, 1954). There are only a limited

number of general action classes that are called upon in the course of a

job and within a general response class or schema the individual response

exemplars are usually quite distinct fran each other. To the extent that

motor responses can be easily differentiated fran each other then PI should

be reduced.

* Encoding Deficits

Although LD seems to be an important factor in producing PI, it is

doubtful that it is the sole basis for the phenomenon. As Postman (1976)

notes, PI continues to be observed in situations in which interference fram

response ccnpetition or differentiation should be minimized such as the

MMFR test (e.g., Ceraso and Henderson, 1966; Houston, 1967). The possibility that encoding deficits related to Task 2 acgusition may also play a

role in PI has been suggested by experiments which showed that PI did not

increase over time for either recognition or cued recall tests (e.g.,

Postman, Stark, & Burns, 1974).

The absence of progressive increases in PI over time suggests that the

subject may not be learning the later list as well as the first, and thus,

inevitably shows poorer retention canpared to subjects who did not have

specific prior learning. This is an interesting possibility because it has

parallels with the encoding deficits for certain materials that were noted

* with organizational processing and autamated performance. If experience

with particular stimuli or responses affects the nature of the encoding

operations, then subjects may not be encoding such material the same way at

the end of training or on the transfer task that they were initially.

Hasher and Johnson (1975) examined the idea that in procedures such as

*O the A-B, A-D paradigm in which the same stimulus is used twice, the subject

employs the most effective mediators in establishing the A-B association.

Thus, they would have employed less useful mediators for A-D learning.

Hasher and Johnson showed that mediators used by subjects in learning the

A-D list produced more forgetting in other subjects who had to use them in

learning a single list (A-B).

36
* -" Transfer of Training

More generally, Lockhart, Craik, & Jacoby (1976) argued that increased

practice with list learning results in changes in the ease with which

subjects acquire the new associations. For example, fewer trials to criterion are needed by subjects on lists presented later in a session canpared

to the number required at the start. The authors suggest that such learning

set behavior is the result of a reduction of processing operations or effort

needed to successfully encode the items, i.e., the subject encodes just

those attributes needed to identify the stimulus, but not redundant or less

"" correlated attributes which might also contribute to retention to same

extent. Therefore, the amount of learning cannot be equated between successive lists by conventional methods such as equal training on both lists (cf.

Underwood 1964). Warr (1964) equated the amount of study time to the list

and found a large decline in the amount of PI observed in such conditions.

_ IfPostman and Keppel (1977) have shown, however, that the acquisition of

* successive lists (A-B, C-D, E-F) is a sufficient condition for the appear- ance of cumulative PI. In addition, at a given stage of practice, the

amount of PI was independent of the level of retention for the prior lists. This finding would suggest that LD is a greater determinant of PI than an

encoding deficit in the conventional P-A procedure. The buildup of PI was

observed in both uncategorized and categorized lists and the rates of

interference were cauparable in both. Little evidence of PI was found in

recognition performance on verbal discrimination tests. The small decline

that was observed appeared to be similar in nature to that found by Underwood, Broder, & Zininerman (1973), i.e., a slight but non-progressive

decline in retention of the lists following the first.

The authors suggested that these findings made implausible the notion

that PI is caused by learning decrements especially in light of the findings by Underwood and Ekstrand (1967) that showed heavy PI even when the rate of

learning failed to increase over successive cycles. There can be little

doubt that LD plays a key role in the development of PI, however, this fact

does not preclude the influence of other processes on PI. It should be re0 membered that PI is observed in the MJ4FR test which is designed to minimize

problems of LD. It seems more likely that LD and encoding deficits (and perhaps other processes) all can result in retention decrements in later learning. The extent to which each factor will determine the amount of PI

in a given situation would presumably be dependent on the contingent factors

existing in those circumstances.

Srmmary

Prior learning can proactively interfere with the acquisition and retention of later learning. Failures of list discrimination and reductions

in the amount of information encoded about later tasks were shown to be two

A, 37
Im -. . .•. . - - . . . ° .•.B o •

Transfer of Training

important factors in the development of PI, providing an information

processing interpretation of some PI phenamena. Manipulations which

increased the differentiation of material between Task 1 and Task 2 often

significantly decreased the amount of observed PI. It was shown that

perceptual-motor responding exhibits little PI in transfer, in contrast to

verbal material, possibly because of the greater distinctiveness of motoric

responses conpared with verbal responses. In addition, subjects seem to

encode TBR material on Task 2 more efficiently but also less canpletely

than ask 1 material. This may serve as the basis for the small, nonprogressive decline frequently observed for Task 2 retention.

Summary

Current information processing and memorial constructs are shown to

have relevance for the interpretation of transfer of training effects. The

five major factors examined in the present paper were: (1) the relation of

the retrieval information present in the transfer task to the material

encoded in Task 1; (2) the study-phase retrieval of information from Task 1

in the course of Task 2 learning which permits the integration and abstraction of both sets of information; (3) organizational strategies and schemata

which enhance stimulus processing and performance; and (4) the autamatizaon of performance with consistent stimulus training. All of these factors

were examined for their applicability in the interpretation of transfer of

training phencmena using both basic and applied research whenever possible.

A wide range of research was reviewed to show the utility of these factors

in the explanation of transfer of training effects. These factors were

shown to provide a process-based account of transfer studies conducted in

an S-R framework (e.g., simulation studies, PI), thereby unifying this

literature with transfer studies conducted in the information processing

area. In addition, these factors were shown to be relevant in many cases

to both verbal-symbolic and motoric responses.

38
Transfer of Training

References

Adams, J. A. Psychcmotor response acquisition and transfer as a function of

control-indicator relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

1954, 47, 411-417.

Adams, J. A. Human tracking behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58,

55-79.

Adams, J. A. A closed loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor

Behavior, 1971, 3, 111-149.

Adams, J. A. On the evolution of training devices F. V. Taylor Memorial

Address. APA Convention, Toronto, Canada, 1978.

Adams, J. A. & Djikstra, S. Short-term memory for motor responses. Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 71, 314-318.

Adams, J. A., Gopher, D., & Lintern, G. Effects of visual and propriocep- tive feedback on motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9,

11-22.

Alexander, L., Frankiewicz, R. G. & Williams R. E. Facilitation of learning

and retention of oral instruction using advance and post organizers.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 701-707.

Anderson, J. R., Kline, P. J., & Beasley, C. M. A general learning theory

and its application to schema abstraction. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The

psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 13), N.Y.: Academic Press,

1979.

Annett, J. Learning a pressure under conditions of immediate and delayed knowledge of results. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,

1959, 11, 3-15.

Arnoult, M. D. Stimulus predifferentiation: Sane generalizations and

hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 339-350.

Ausubel, D. P. The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroan. Educational Psychology, 1977, 12, 162-178.

Ausubel, D. P. & Fitzgerald, D. Organizer, general background and antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 243-249.

Baker, L., Santa, J. L., & Gentry, J. M. Consequences of rigid and flexible

learning. Bulletin of the Psychoncimic Society, 1977, 9, 58-60.

39

- 4 C
Transfer of Training

Baker, R. A., Cook, J. G., Warnick, W. L., & Robinson, J. P. Development

and evaluation of systems for the conduct of tactical training at the

tank platoon level. Alex., Va.: HurRRO (Tech. Report 64-88), 1964.

Barch, A. M. & Lewis, D. The effect of task difficulty and amount of prac- tice on proactive transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954,

48, 134-142.

Barclay, J. R., Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., McCarrell, N. S., &

Nitsch, K. Comprehension and semantic flexibility. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 471-481.

Battig, W. F. The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M.

Craik (eds.) Levels of processing and human memory, Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum, 1978.

Belleza, F. S. & Schirmann, N. J. Response dependence in simultaneously

learned A-B, A-C lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

1975, 14, 89-94.

Belleza, F. S., Winkler, H. B., & Andrasik, F. Encoding processes and the

spacing effect. Memory and cognition, 1975, 3, 451-457.

Bernstein, B. R. & Gonzalez, B. K. Learning retention and transfer. (Tech.

Report 68-C-0215-1, Vol. 1) Orlando, Fla.: Naval Training Device Center.

Bevan, W., Dukes, W. F., & Avant, L. L. The effect of variation in specific stimuli on memory for their superordinates. American Journal of

Psychology, 1966, 79, 250-270.

Bilodeau, E. A. Some effects of various degrees of supplemental information

given at two levels of practice upon the acquisition of a comlex motor

skill. (Tech. Report 52-15) Lackland AFB: USAF Human Resources Research

Center, 1952.

Bilodeau, I. M. & Bilodeau, E. A. Transfer of training and physical restriction of responses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1958, 8, 71-78.

Bilodeau, E. A. & Bilodeau, I. M. Motor skills learning. Annual Review of

Psychology, 1961, 12, 243-280.

Bilodeau, E. A., Jones, J. B., & Levy, C. M. Long-term memory as a function

of retention time and repeated recalling. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 1964, 67, 303-309.

Bird, C. P. Proactive inhibition as a function of orienting task characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 1977, 5, 27-31.

40
Transfer of Training

: -. Bird, C. P. & Roberts, R. An examination of orienting task relationships

in a proactive interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 1980, 8,

468-475.

Birnbaum, I. S. Organization of numbers in free recall. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 1, 393-399.

V Bobrow, D. G. & Norman, D. A. Same principles of memory schemata. In D. G.

Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.) Representation and understanding: Studies

in cognitive science, N.Y.: Academic Press, 1975.

Boswell, J. J. & Irion, A. L. Transfer of training as a function of target

speed in pursuit rotor performance: Practice and retroactive effects.

Journal of Motor Behavior, 1975, 7, 105-111.

Bousfield, W. A. The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randamly

* arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 1953, 49, 229-240.

Bower, G. H. Stimulus sampling theory of encoding variability. In A.W.

Melton & E. Martin (Eds.) Coding processes in human memory. Washington,

" -D.C.: Winston, 1972.

Bower, G. H. & Lesgold, A. M. Organization as a determinant of part-towhole transfer in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1969, 8, 501-506.

Briggs, G. E. Transfer of training. In E. A. Bilodeau (Ed.). Principles

of skill acquisition, N.Y.: Academic Press, 1969.

Briggs, G. E. & Waters, L. K. Training and transfer as a function of

canponent interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56,

492-500.

Burton, J. K., Lemke, E. A., & Williams, J. R. Transfer effects as a

* function of variety of method and ability level in elementary mathematics.

Journal for Research in Mathematics in Education, 1975, 6, 228-231.

Buschke, H. & Schaier, A. H. Memory units, ideas and propositions in semantic remembering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979,

18, 549-563.

Butter, E. J. Visual and haptic training and cross-modal transfer of reflectivity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 212-219.

Campione, J. C. & Brown, A. L. Transfer of training: Effects of successive

pretraining of components in a dimension abstracted oddity task. Journal

of Experimental Child Psychology, 1974, 18, 398-411.

Caro, P. W. Aircraft simulators and flight training. Human Factors, 1973,

17, 533-541.

41
Transfer of Training

Caro, P. W. The relationship between flight simulator motion and training

requirements. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 493-501.

Carpenter, P. A. & Just, M. A. Integrative processes in camprehension in

D. La Berge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.). Perception and comprehension.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Ceraso, J. & Henderson, A. Unavailability and associative loss in RI and

PI: Second try. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 314-316.

Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology,

1973, 4, 55-81.

Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. Acquisition of damain related

information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 257-273.

Christina, R. W. & Anson, J. G. The learning of programmed and feedback

based processes controlling the production of a positioning response in

two dimensions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1981, 13, 48-64.

Clark, H. Inferences in camprehension. In D. La Berge & S. Samuels (Eds.).

Basic processes in reading, perception, and comprehension, Hillsdale,

N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

Cohen, B. H. Recall of categorized word lists. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 1963, 66, 227-234.

Colle, H. A. & De Maio, J. Measurement of attentional capacity load using

dual task performance operating curves (AFHRL-TR-78-5). Brooks AFB,

Texas: Human Resources Lab, April, 1978.

Cote, J. J. & Schaefer, E. G. Perceptual processing strategies in crossmodal transfer of form discrimination: A development study. Journal of

Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 1981, 7,

1340-1348.

D mos, D. L. The development and transfer of time sharing skills. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 1977.

0 Dee-Lucas, D. & DiVesta, F. J. Learner generated organizational aids:

Effect on learning fran text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980,

72, 304-311.

Deese, J. & Hulse, S. W. The psychology of learning. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill,

1967.

Deese, J. & Marder, V. J. The pattern of errors in delayed recall of serial

learning after interpolation. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 60,

594-599.

42

* :***vr**~* * * :i:<,j.** .k*
Transfer of Training

Diewart, G. L. & Stelmach, G. E. Intramodal and intermodal transfer of

- movement information. Acta Psychologia, 1977, 41, 119-128.

Duncan, J. The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous

stimuli. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 272-300.

Dunham, P. Effect of practice order on the efficiency of bilateral skill

acquisition. Research Quarterly, 1977, 48, 274-87.

* Eberts, R. & Schneider, W. Ccmpter assisted displays enabling intenualization and reduction of operator worload in higher order systems or pushing

the barrier of human control beyond second order systems. Proceedings of

the Human Factors Society, 1980, 59-62.

Egeth, H. Attention and preattention. In G. H. Bower (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 11), N.Y.: Academic Press, 1977.

Ellis, H. C. Stimulus encoding processes in human learning. In G. H. Bower

(Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 7), N.Y.:

Academic Press, 1973.

Ellis, H. C. & Muller, D. G. Transfer in perceptual learning following

stimulus predifferentiation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964,

S--68, 388-395.

Ellis, H. C. & Shaffer, R. W. Stimulus encoding and the transfer of

stimulus differentiation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1974, 13, 393-400.

Ellis, H. C., Parente, F. J., & Walker, C. W. Coding and varied input

versus repetition in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

1974, 102, 284-290.

Elmes, D. G., Greener, W. I., & Wilkinson, W. C. Free recall of items

* presented after massed and distributed practice items. American Journal

of Psychology, 1972, 85, 237-240.

Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and

Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 143-149.

Eriksen, C. W. & Schultz, D. W. Information processing in visual search:

A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception and

Psycholophysics, 1979, 25, 249-263.

Eriksen, C. W. & Spencer, T. Rate of information processing in visual

perception: Scme results and methodological considerations. Journal of

Experimental Psychology Monographs, 1969, 79, No. 2.

43
Transfer of Training

Eysenck, M. W. Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L. Cermak &

F.I.M. Craik (Eds.). Levels of processing in human memory, Hillsdale,

N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Fisk, A. W. & Schneider, W. Control and autamatic processing during tasks

*- requiring sustained attention: A new approach to vigelance. Human

Factors, 1981, 23, 737-750.

Fleishman, E. A. The prediction of total task performance fran prior

practice on task canponents. Human Factors, 1965, 7, 18-27.

Fleishman, E. A. & Rich, S. Role of kinesthetic and spatial-visual abilities in perceptual motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

1963, 66, 6-12.

Flexser, A. J. & Tulving, E. Retrieval independence in recognition and

recall. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 153-171.

Frase, L. T. & Kreitzberg, V. S. Effect of topical and indirect learning directions on prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67,

320-324.

Freedle, D. 0., Zavala, A., & Fleishman, E. A. Studies of component total S. task relations: Order of canponents, total task practice and total task

predictability. Human Factors, 1968, 10, 283-296.

Friedman, A. Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatic encoding

and memory for gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 1978,

108, 316-355.

Fumato, N. Asymmetric transfer in a pursuit tracking task related to a

change of strategy. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1981, 13, 197-206.

Gabriel, R. F. & Burrows, A. A. Improving time sharing performance of

pilots through training. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 583-593.

Gardiner, J. M., Craik, F. I. M., & Birtwistle, J. Retireval cues and

release fram proactive inhibition. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 778-783.

Gerathewohl, S. J. Fidelity of simulation and transfer of training: A

review of the problem (AM 69-24). Office of Aviation Medecine Federal

Aeronautics Administration: Wash. D.C., 1969.

Gilbert, N., Spring, C., & Sassenrath, J. Effects of overlearning and

similarity on transfer in word recognition. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

1977, 44, 591-598.

44

.% .
- e .. . . ... . . . . •

Transfer of Training

Goldstein, D. A. & King, W. J. Transfer retention for verbal and motor

tasks (Tech. Report AD 255684). Wash. D.C.: Office of Naval Research,

1961.

Gopher, D. & North, R. A. The measurement of capacity limitation through

single and dual task performance with individual adjustment of difficulty. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors

Society, 1974, 480-485.

Gopher, D. & North, R. A. Manipulating the conditions of training in time

sharing performance. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 583-593.

Graber, R. A., Means, R. S., & Johnston, T. D. The effect of subsuming

concepts on student achievement of unfamiliar science learning material.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1972, 9, 277-279.

Graboi, D. Searching for targets: The effects of specific practice.

Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 300-304.

Grimsley, D. L. Acquisition, retention, and retraining: Training category

IV personnel with low fidelity devices (Tech. Report 69-12), Alex. Va.,

HLmRRO, 1969.

Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Charack, G., & Neisser, V.

Dividing attention without alternation or autcmaticity. Journal of

Experimental Psychology. General, 1980, 109, 98-117.

Holding, D. H. Guidance in pursuit tracking. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 1959, 57, 362-366.

Holding, D. H. Principles of training. london: Pergamon, 1965.

Holding, D. H. An approximate transfer surface. Journal of Motor Behavior,

1976, 8, 1-9.

Holding, D. H. & MacRae, A. W. Rate and force of guidance in perceptualmotor tasks with reversed or randan spatial correspondence. Ergonomics,

1966, 9, 289-296.

Hama, D. Abstraction of ill-defined form. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 407-416.

Horowitz, L. M. & Manelis, C. Toward a theory of redintegrative memory:

Adjective-noun phrases. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning

and motivation. (Vol. 6) N.Y.: Academic Press, 1972.

Houston, J. P. Proactive inhibition and canpetition at recall. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75, 118-121.

45
Transfer of Training

Hull, C. L. Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts: An experimental study. Psychological Monographs, 1921, 28, No. 123.

Hunt, R. R. & Mitchell, D. B. Specificity in nonsemantic orienting tasks

and distinctive memory traces. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 136-145.

Hunt, R. R., Parente, P. J., & Ellis, H. C. Transfer of coding strategies

" * in free recall with constant and varied input. Journal of Experimental

.* Psychology, 1974, 103, 619-624.

Husek, W. S. & Reeve, T. G. Novel response production as a function of

variability and amount of practice. Research Quarterly, 1979, 50,

215-221.

Jacobs, R. S. & Roscoe, S. N. Simulator cockpit motion and the transfer of

initial flight training. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 19th

Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society, 1975.

Jacoby, L. L. The role of mental contiguity in memory: Registration and

retrieval effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,

13, 483-496.

Jahnke, J. C. & Duncan, C. P. Reminiscence and forgetting in motor learning

after extended rest intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956,

52, 273-282.

Jarvella, R. J. Coreference and short term memory for discourse. Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 98, 426-428.

-. Jennings, A. E. & Chiles, W. D. An investigation of time-sharing ability as

. a factor in complex performance. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 535-547.

* Johnson, S. L. Effect of training device on retention and transfer of

procedural task. Human Factors, 1981, 23, 257-272.

Johnson, W. A. & Uhl, C. N. The contributions of encoding effort and variability to the spacing effect on free recall. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Motivation, 1976, 2, 153-160.

• .Kahneman, D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

1973.

. Katz, R. A. & Zigler, E. Effects of labels on perceptual transfer, stimulus

* -" and development factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80,

73-77.

Kelso, J. A. S. & Norman, P. E. Motor schema formation in children.

SDevelopmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 153-156.

- 46

; ee
Transfer of Training

Kessel, C. J. & Wickens, C. D. The transfer of failure detection skills

between monitoring and controlling dynamic systems. Human Factors, 1982, *-..-.24, 49-60.

Kolers, P. Memorial consequences of automatized encoding. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 1, 689-701.

Koonce, J. M. Effects of ground based aircraft simulator motion conditions

upon prediction of pilot proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979.

Kristofferson, M. W. Effects of practice on Character classification

performance. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1972, 26, 54-60.

Kristofferson, M. W. The effects of practice with one positive set in a

memory scanning task can be completely transferred to a different posi-

* tive set. Memory and Cognition, 1977, 5, 177-186.

Lee, T. D. & Hirota, T. T. Encoding specificity principle in motor shortterm memory for movement extent. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1980, 12,

63-67.

Leonard, S., Kormes, E. W., Oxendine, J., & Hesson, J. Effects of task

difficulty on transfer performance on rotary pursuit. Perceptual and

,. motor skills, 1970, 30, 731-736.

Lintern G. Transfer of landing skill after training with supplementary

visual cues. Human Factors, 1980, 22, 81-88.

Livesey, J. P. & Laszlo, J. I. Effect of task similarity on transfer

performance. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1979, 11, 11-21.

Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.). Recall and recognition, N.Y.:

Wiley, 1976.

Logan, G. D. On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention

and autamaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception

and Performance, 1979, 5, 189-207.

O .Logan, G. D. Attention and autamaticity in Stroop and priming tasks:

Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 523-553.

Sovaas, 0. I. & Simmons, J. Manipulation of self destruction in three

retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1969, 2,

143-157.

MacRae, A. W. & Holding, D. H. Method and task in motor guidance.

Ergonomics, 1965, 8, 315-320.
4 4 4

4'

Transfer of Training

MacRae, A. W. & Holding, D. H. Transfer of training after guidance or practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 18, 327-333.

Madigan, S. A. Intraserial repetition and coding processes in free recall.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 828-835.

Mandler, G. Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence

(Eds.). The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 1), N.Y.:

Academic Press, 1967.

Martin, E. Stimulus encoding in learning and transfer. In A. W. Melton &

E. Martin (Eds.) Coding processes in human memory. Wash. D.C.:

Winston, 1972.

Mayer, R. E. & Bramage, B. K. Different recall protocols for technical

texts due to advance organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, .. 1980, 72, 209-225.

McCormack, P. D. Negative transfer in motor performance following a criti-

. cal 8, amout of verbal pretraining. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1958, 27-31.

McCracken, H. D. & Stelmach, G. E. A test of the schema theory of discrete

motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9, 193-201.

• -.... ,McGeoch, J. A. The psychology of human learning, N.Y.: Longmans Green,

.7 -1942.

McGuigan, F. J. & McCaslin, E. F. Whole and part methods in learning a

perceptual motor skill. American Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68,

658-661. -.'

is' McI on, G. & Ratcliff, R. Priming in item recognition: The organization of propositions in memory for text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1980, 19, 369-386.

Michelli, G. Augmenting feedback and transfer of training (Tech. Report

IH-41), R)rt Washington, N.Y.: Naval Training Device Center, 1966.

Miller, E. E. Military psychology. In R. N. Singer (Ed.) The psychcmotor O domain, Philadelphia, Pa.: Lea & Febiger, 1972.

Miller, G. A. The magic number seven plus or minus two: Sane limits on our .., capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 1956, 63, o- •,81-97.

0. Moeser, S. D. Inferential reasoning in episodic memory. Journal of Verbal

4Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 193-212.

.48
.5

Transfer of Training

Morrisett, L. & Hovland, C. I. A caparison of three varieties of training

in human problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58,

152-155.

Moxley, S. E. Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of

Motor Behavior, 1979, 11, 65-70.

* Nagae, S. Nature of discriminating and categorizing functions of verbal

labels on recognition memory for shape. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1980, 6, 421-429.

Naylor, J. C. Parameters affecting the relative efficiency of part and whole

practice methods: A review of the literature. (TDC TR 950-1) Port

Washington, N.Y.: Naval Training Development Center, 1962.

Neisser, U., Novick, R., & Lazar, R. Searching for ten targets simultaneously. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 17, 955-961.

Nelson, D. L. Femembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and

name. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.) Levels of processing in

human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Nelson, D. L. & Row, F. A. Information theory and stimulus encoding in

paired-associated acquisition: Ordinal position of formal similarity.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 342-346.

Newell, A. & Rosenbloam, P. S. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law

of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.) Cognitive skills and their acquisition, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981.

Newell, J. M. & Shapiro, D. C. Variability of practice and transfer of

training: Same evidence toward a schema view of motor learning. Journal

of Motor Behavior, 1976, 8, 233-243.

Nitsch, K. E. Structuring decontextualized forms of knowledge. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1977.

Novinski, L. S. A reexamination of the part/whole effect in free recall.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 229-233.

Nugent, G. C., Tipton, T. J., & Brooks, D. W. Use of introductory organizers

in television instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72,

445-451.

Ornstein, P. A. Role of prior-list organization in a free recall transfer

task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 86, 32-37.

Ornstein, G. N., Nichols, I. A., & Flexman, R. E. Evaluation of a contact

flight simulator when used in an Air Force primary pilot training program:

Part II, effectivness of training on cgment skills. (AD 62373) Air

of Force Personnel & Training Center, Lackland AFB, Texas, 1954.

49
Transfer of Training

Osgood, C. E. The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution.

Psychological Review, 1949, 56, 132-143.

Petrich, J. A. Organization of recall in the retroactive inhibition paradigm. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 294-301.

Pew, R. W. Human perceptual motor performance. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.)

Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition,

N.Y.: Erlbaum, 1974.

Popp, R. & Voss, J. F. Acquisition-transfer and retention of S-R, and S-R 2 : . Assocations as a function of S-R I , S-R 2 pattern. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 304-308.

' Posner, M. I. & Keele, S. W. On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 353-363.

Posner, M. I. & Keele, S. W. Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 304-308.

Posner, M. I. & Keele S. W. Skill learning. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.) Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, Ill.: American

Educational Pesearch Association, 1973.

Postman, L. Transfer of training as a function of experimental paradigm

and degree of first list learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 1962, 1, 109-118.

Postman, L. Interference theory revisited. In J. Brown (Ed.) Recall and

Recognition, N.Y.: Wiley, 1976.

Postman, L. & Hasher, L. Conditions of proactive inhibition in free recall.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 92, 276-284.

*Postman, L. & Keppel, G. Conditions of cumulative proactive inhibition.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977, 106, 376-403.

Postman, L. & Parker, J. F. Maintenance of first list associations during

transfer. American Journal of Psychology, 1970, 83, 171-188.

0 Postman, L., Stark, K., & Burns, S. Sources of proactive inhibition on

unpaced tests of retention. American Journal of Psychology, 1974, 87,

33-56.

Poulton, E. C. Measuring the order of difficulty of visual-motor tasks.

Ergonomics, 1958, 1, 234-239.

Prather, D. C. Trial and error versus errorless learning: Training transfer

and stress. American Journal of Psychology, 1971, 84, 377-386.

50
Transfer of Training

Prather, D. C. & Berry, G. A. Comparison of trial and error versus highly

prompted learning of a perceptual skill. Proceedings of the 78th Annual

Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1970, 5, 677-678.

Prather, D. C., Berry, G. A. & Bermudez, J. M. Effect of prompting and

feedback on performance during learning, stress, and transfer of a perceptual skill. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Assocation, 1972, 7, 643-644.

Price, R. H. & Slive, A. B. Verbal processes in shape recognition. Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 373-379.

Prophet, W. W. & Boyd, H. A. Device task fidelity and transfer of training:

Aircraft cockpit procedures training. Tech. Report 70-10, Alex., Va.:

HumRRO, 1970.

Rathert, G. A., Creer, B. Y. & Sadoff, M. The use of piloted flight simulators in general research. (Tech. Report 365), Paris, France. Advisory Group for Aeronastical Research and Development, NATO, 1961

Rieck, A. M., Ogden, G. D. & Anderson, N. S. An investigation of varying

amounts of component task practice on dual task performance. Human

Factors, 1980, 22, 373-384.

Ross, J. Extended practice within a single character classification task.

Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 276-278.

Rothkopf, E. Z. & Koether, M. E. Instructional effects of discrepancies in

content and organization between study goals and information sources.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 67-71.

Royer, J. M. & Cable, G. W. Facilitated learning in connected discourse.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 116-123.

Royer, J. M., Perkins, M. R., & Konald, C. E. Evidence for a selective

storage mechanism in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,

1978, 70, 457-462.

Rundus, D. Organization and part-whole transfer. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 91-101.

Runquist, N. N. & Runquist, P. A. Interference reduction with conceptually

similar paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human

Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 370-381.

Russ-Eft, D. Proactive interference: Buildup and release for individual

words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory.

1979, 5, 422-434.

51

v% . '' 14. -mV .
Transfer of Training

Russell, D. G. Spatial location cues and movement reproduction. In G.E.

Stelmach (Ed.) Motor control: Issues and trends. N.Y.: Academic, 1976.

Ruocco, J. N., Vitale, P. A. & Benfari, R. C. Kinetic cueing in simulated

carrier approaches. (AD 617689) Naval Training Device Center, Port

Washington, N.Y., 1965.

Salthouse, T. A. & Scmberg, B. L. Skilled performance: Effects of adult age

and experience on elementary processes. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 1982, 111, 176-207.

Salvendy, G. & Piltsis, J. The development and validation of an analytical

training program for medical suturing. Human Factors, 1980, 22, 753-70.

Schmidt, R. A. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning.

Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 225-260.

Schneider, W. Autanatic/control processing concepts and their implications

for the training of skills (HARL-ONR-8101) Arlington, Va.: Office of

Naval Research, 1982.

Schneider, W. & Fisk, A. D. Degree of consistent training: Improvements in

search performance and autamatic process development. Perception and

Psychophysics, 1982, 31, 160-168.

Schneider, W. & Fisk, A. D. Degree of consistent training and the development

of autamatic process. Perception and Psychophysics, in press.

Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. Controlled and autamatic human information

processing I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review,

1977, 84, 1-66.

Schulze, N. & Gorfein, D. S. Subject strategies in part-whole transfer in

free recall. Memory & Cognition, 1976, 4, 311-317.

Schwrtz, R. M. & Humphreys, M. S. List differentiation in part-whole

transfer in free recall. American Journal of Psychology, 1973, 86,

79-88.

Shaffer, L. H. Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P. M. A.

Rabbit & S. Dornic (Eds.) Attention and performance V. N.Y.: Academic

Press, 1975.

Shaffer, W. 0. & LaBerge, D. Autanatic semantic processing of unattended

words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18,

413-426.

Shapiro, D. C. A preliminary attempt to determine the duration of a motor

program. In D. M. Landers and R. W. Christina (Eds.) The psychology of

4. sport and motor behaviors, I. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics, 1976.

52

MoM
Transfer of Training

Shapiro, D. C., Zernicke, R. F., Gregor, R. J., & Dostel, J. D. Evidence

for generalized motor programs using gait pattern analysis. Journal of

Motor Behavior, 1981, 13, 33-47.

Shea, J. B. & Morgan, R. L. Contextual inference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979, 5, 179-187.

Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. Controlled and autamatic human information

processing II. Perceptual learning, autamatic attending and a general

theory. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 127-190.

Singer, R. N. To err or not to err: A question for the instruction of

psychcmotor skills. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 479-498.

Singer, R. N. & Gaines, L. Effects of pranpted and problem solving

approaches on learning and transfer of motor skills. American

Educational Research Journal, 1975, 12, 395-403.

Singer, R. N. & Pease, D. Effect of guided vs. discovery learning strategies on initial motor task learning, transfer, and retention. Research

Quarterly, 1978, 49, 206-217.

Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological

Review, 1974, 81, 214-241.

Spelke, E. Hirst, W. & Neisser, U. Skills of divided attention.

Cognition, 1976, 4, 215-230.

Sullin, R. A. & Dooling, D. J. Intrusions of a thematic idea in the retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 255-262.

of Motor Behavior, 1975, 7, 229-241.

Sweller, J. The effect of task canplexity and sequence on role learning

and problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 1976, 67, 553-358.

Sweller, J. & Gee, W. Einstellung, the sequence effect, and hypothesis

theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,

1978, 4, 513-526.

Terzuolo, C. A. & Viviani, P. The central representation of learned motor

patterns. In R. E. Talbott & D. R. Humphrey (Eds.) Posture and movement,

N.Y.: Raven Press, 1979.

Thcmson, D. M. & Tulving, E. Associative encoding and retrieval: weak and

strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 86, 255-262.

Thorndike, E. L. The fundamentals of learning, N.Y.: Teachers College,

1932.

53
Transfer of Training

Thorndike, E. L. & Woodworth, R. S. The influence of improvement in one

mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological

* Review, 1901, 8, 247-261.

Thorndyke, P. W. Cognitive structures in canprehension and memory of narra-

*tive discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 77-110.

Trabasso, T. R. Stimulus enphasis and all-or-none learning in concept

identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 398-406.

Treisman, A. M. & Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention.

Cognitive Psychology, 1980, 12, 97-136.

Trumbo, D., Ulrich, L., & Noble, M. Verbal coding and display coding in the

acquisition and retention of tracking skill. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1965, 49, 368-375.

Tulving, E. Subjective organization and the effects of repetition in multitrial free recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 1966, 5, 193-197.

Tulving, E. Ecporic processes in recall and recognition. In J. Brown

(Ed.) Recall and recognition, N.Y.: Wiley, 1976.

Tulving, E. & Donaldson, W. Organization of menory. N.Y.: Academic Press,

1972.

Tulving, E. & Pearlstone, Z. Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

1966, 5, 381-391.

Turvey, M. T. Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision.

In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.) Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward

an ecological psychology, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Underwood, B. J. Degree of learning and the measurement of forgetting.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 112-129.

Underwood, B. J. Attributes of memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 76,

559-573.

Underwood, B. J., Broder, P. K., & Zimmerman, J. Retention of verbal

discrimination lists as a function of number of prior lists, word frequency, and type of list. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 100,

101-105.

Underwood, B. J. & Ekstrand, B. R. An analysis of same shortcamings in the

interference theory of forgetting. Psychological Review, 1966, 73,

540-549.

54

, '% '. V %'. 2-.'- '. 1 .";." . ." ' - - " " .-
.- .

Transfer of Training

Underwood, B. J. & Ekstrand, B. R. Studies of distributed practice: XXIV.

Differentiation and proactive inhibition. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 1967, 74, 574-580.

Underwood, B. J. & Postman, L. Extra-experimental sources of interference

in forgetting. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 73-95.

-V- Valverde, H. H. A review of flight simulator transfer of training studies.

. * Human Factors, 1973, 15, 510-523.

Von Wright, J. Cross modal transfer and sensory equivalence: A review.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1970, 11, 21-30.

Wallace, S. A. The coding of location: A test of the target hypothesis.

" Journal of Motor Behavior, 1977, 9, 157-169.

* Warr, P. B. The relative importance of proactive inhibition and degree of

learning in retention of paired-associate items. British Journal of

-'. *Psychology, 1964, 55, 19-30.

Watkins, M. J. Engrams as cuegrams and forgetting as cue overload. In R. C.

Puff (Ed.) Memory, organization and structure, N.Y.: Academic Press,

1979.

Wehman, P., Abramson, J., & Norman, C. Transfer of training in behavior modification programs: An evaluative review. Journal of Special Education,

1977, 11, 217-231.

Weisberg, R., DiCamillo, M., & Phillips, D. Transferring old associations to

new situations: A nonautnmatic process. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 219-228.

Welford, A. T. Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen & Co., 1968.

Wickens, D. D. Characteristics of word encoding. In A. W. Melton & E. Martin

(Eds.) Codoing processes in human memory, Wash., D.C.: Winston, 1972.

Wickens, D. D., Moody, M. J., & Dow, R. The nature and timing of the

retrieval process and of interference effects. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 1981, 110, 1-20.

Wilcoxon, H. C., Davy, E., & Webster, J. C. Evaluation of the SNJ operational

flight trainer. (AD 086988) Navy Special Devices Center, Port Washington,

N.Y., 1954.

Williams, I. D. & Rodney, M. Intrinsic feedback interpolation and the

closed loop theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1978, 10, 25-36.

Wolfgang, A. Errors and latency of response as a function of order of

presentation of tactile visual stimuli in concept identification.

Psychonamic Science, 1981, 22, 237-238.

237-238.

. .%-
Transfer of Training

" Wood, M. E. & Gerlach V. S. Transfer fram audiovisual pretraining to a

continuous perceptual motor task. (AFHRL-TR-74-8) Brooks AFB, Texas:

AF Human Resources Lab, 1974.

Wrisberg, C. A. & Ragsdale, M. R. Further tests of Schmidt's schema theory:

Development task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1979, 11, 159-166.

* - Yekovich, F. R. & Walker, C. H. Identifying and using referents in sentence

comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17,

265-277.

Yekovich, F. R., Walker, C., & Blackman, H. S. The rule of presupposed and

focal information in integrating sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 535-548.

Young, D. R. & Belleza, F. S. Encoding variability memory organization and

the repetition effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning

Memory & Cognition, 1982, 6, 545-559.

Zechmeister, E. B. Orthographic distinctiveness as a variable in word

recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 1972, 85, 425-430.

Zelaznik, H. N., Shapiro, D. C. & Newell, K. M. On the structure of motor

recognition memory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1978, 10, 313-323.

i,

i 56
Transfer of Training

Aeference Note

* 1. Schneider, W. & Fisk, A. D. Developing autaatic search to a category

and its transfer to nontrained examples. Unpublished manuscript.

S57

Si.

I 57