Distinguishing Levels of Grounding that Underlie Transfer of Learning

Distinguishing Levels of Grounding that Underlie Transfer of Learning Lisa A. Byrge (lbyrge@indiana.edu) Department of Psychology, 1101 E. 10 th Street Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Robert L. Goldstone (rgoldsto@indiana.edu) Department of Psychology, 1101 E. 10 th Street Bloomington, IN 47405 USA Abstract We find that transfer of learning from a perceptually concrete simulation to an isomorphic but superficially dissimilar text- based problem is sensitive to the congruence between the force dynamics common to both systems and the kinesthetic schema induced via action in the first, perceptually concrete, simulation. Counterintuitively, incompatibility between the force dynamics and the kinesthetic schema has a beneficial effect on transfer, relative to compatibility as well as an unrelated control. We suggest that this incompatibility between action and system dynamics may make the system’s relational structure more salient, leading to a more flexible conceptualization that ultimately benefits transfer. In addition, we suggest that too much “action concreteness” in hands-on learning may actually limit transfer, by fostering an understanding that is tied to that action and therefore less available for transfer in situations where that action is no longer relevant. Keywords: Transfer; Action; Education; Embodiment; Analogy. Introduction Proliferating evidence from embodied cognitive science indicates that people regularly transfer understanding from visceral, body-based, experience to more “abstract” domains, such as from physical movement to conceptualization of time (Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002) and from zygomaticus (smiling) muscle contraction to assessment of humor (Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988). A different kind of transfer of understanding – as traditionally conceptualized – is of crucial importance in education. Much of our educational system is based on the hope that prior learning can be transferred to novel situations. Unfortunately, research has shown that people often have great difficulties in transferring knowledge to new contexts (Gick & Holyoak, 1980). Much of the literature on transfer has focused on transfer of abstract problem-solving skills, such as applying a previously-learned mathematical equation to a novel type of problem. However, recent work has demonstrated an implicit form of transfer from a simulated concrete physical system to a superficially dissimilar textual problem with an analogous goal (Day & Goldstone, in press). In this work, the perceptual and spatial concreteness of the simulation, along with its dynamic nature, are thought to facilitate the development of a mental model that can then be deployed for interpreting and solving the less intuitive transfer task. This transfer was demonstrated for simulations controlled with a neutral action (a mouse click) or with no action (passive observation), suggesting that the transfer occurs at the level of the force dynamics that both systems have in common. However, the above finding of implicit, spontaneous transfer from physical experience raises an interesting question. Would some form of “action concreteness” in the training simulation – parallel to the perceptual and spatial concreteness found to be beneficial – enhance this transfer still further? Adding action that is compatible with the force dynamics of the system might foster a more powerful representation of the force dynamics, by inducing a “kinesthetic schema” that echoes the conceptual force dynamics of the system. Such an enhanced, visceral understanding may then be more readily accessed and transferred. There is a growing literature on “action compatibility” effects in domains ranging from sentence comprehension (Glenberg & Kaschak, 2002) to insight problem solving (Thomas & Lleras, 2009; Catrambone et al, 2006), documenting facilitation when there is congruence between an action and a more abstract but related process. The idea that action compatibility is beneficial is also prominent in education, where researchers often assume that for difficult concepts, increased physical support leads to better learning and transfer. However, work on contextualization suggests an alternative perspective -- too much concreteness can have a detrimental effect on transfer, causing what is learned to be “bound” to the learning context and less able to applied in novel situations (Goldstone & Son, 2009). On this view, action compatibility may actually harm transfer. The purpose of the current studies is therefore to determine whether action compatibility acts as a scaffold for learning and transfer, or as an obstacle to generalization. Experiments To investigate the effect of action compatibility on transfer, we operationalized action compatibility as the congruence between the conceptual force schema of the system being learned and the kinesthetic schema induced by the actions used to control the simulation of the system. We used the training and transfer task from Day and Goldstone (in press), with which positive transfer was demonstrated when the goals – and therefore both solution procedures and