OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 1

Out of the Box: Cognitive Insights to Knowledge Transfer in Pedagogy

Darlene M. Ferri-Kurjack

Purdue University

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 2

Abstract

It is common knowledge that rote learners are not demonstrating long-term knowledge transfer

and instead only retaining knowledge long enough to perform well on testing (Bransford, Brown

& Cocking, 1999, pp. 39-43). This paper compiles the opinions of noted experts in the field of

cognition and learning and revisits essential elements of curriculum design that best contribute to

knowledge transfer for learners. The analysis of the literature renders consideration to the

creation of mental structures, learning differences, the influence of culture, assessments and

materials for inspiring knowledge transfer. In culmination, these would demonstrate as

contributing effective factors in a learning environment. The review identifies constraints to

change that exist within the current educational public environment. Expert opinions support an

out of the box approach to learning as compared to traditional instruction and recall. The results

of the analysis identify the importance of active learning and student centered approaches as

influential to inspire knowledge transfer.

Keywords: Knowledge Transfer, Mental Structures, Curriculum, Technology

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 3

Out of the Box: Cognitive Insights to Knowledge Transfer in Pedagogy

Education at any level serves the goal of transferring knowledge. It is common

knowledge that the traditional method of rote learning is not demonstrating long-term knowledge

transfer and instead students are only retaining knowledge long enough to perform well on

testing (Bransford et al, 1999, pp. 39-43). The field of Developmental and Cognitive psychology

has shed light to the underlying processes involved in learning. These stem to both the

developmental and organizational structures critical to thinking (Reiser, 2011, p. 38). While a

great deal of research provides such insights, the mainstream of public education has had limited

capability to successfully incorporate the results of such research into pedagogical methods as

they best apply to different learning types (Gardner, 2000, p. 150). This paper intends to compile

the opinions of noted experts in the field of cognition and learning. The goal of this paper is to

revisit the essential elements of curriculum design that best contribute to knowledge transfer.

Experts reveal out of the box approaches to traditional instruction and recall.

Literature Review

The following research compiles the opinions of noted experts in the field of cognition

and learning and rediscovers essential elements of curriculum design that best contribute to

knowledge transfer for learners. This literature review considers the creation of mental

structures, learning differences, the influence of culture, assessments, materials, and constraints

within the current educational environment.

Cognitive Considerations to Learning

Psychologists have long been addressing theories regarding how children learn. Piaget

(1964) provided a theory to the differences between development and learning. In this view,

development takes place through the internal process of creating knowledge structures and

learning is provoked by an external influence, being a teacher or situation (p. 176). Piaget,

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 4

(1964) asked three questions regarding learning to test multiple learning theories of the time,

these being:

1. Is this learning lasting? What remains two weeks or a month later? If a structure

develops spontaneously, once it has reached a state of equilibrium, it is lasting, it

will continue throughout the child’s entire life. When you achieve the learning by

external reinforcement, is the result lasting or not and what are the conditions

existing for it to be lasting?

2. How much generalization is possible? What makes learning interesting is the

possibility of transfer of a generalization. When you have brought about some

learning, you can always ask whether this is an isolated piece in the midst of the

child’s mental life, or if it is really a dynamic structure, which can lead to

generalizations.

3. Then there is the third question: “In the case of each learning experience what was

the operational level of the subject before the experience and what more complex

structures has this learning succeeded in achieving? In other words, we must

look at each specific learning experience from the point of view of the

spontaneous operations that were present at the outset and the operational level

that has been achieved after the learning experience (pp. 184-185).

Piaget, theorized in response to these questions that children learn at play and imitation through

the process of “Active Assimilation” whereby the child and the learning subject are “Active” and

“Assimilation’ integrates new information into an existing mental structure that was already

understood (1964, p. 185). To know an object and to form a cognitive structure, a child has to

act on it on it, for example, through bending, rolling, or other forms of exploration (p. 178).

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 5

There are also factors, which contribute to the development of one set of structures to another:

these being the role of maturation, experience, social transmission or linguistic transmission, and

equilibrium (p. 181). In accounting for the progression to math and logic, before support can be

by concrete material, a child must first form a mental structure that accounts for the self-

experience of the coordination and the ordering and joining of objects (p. 180). Experts in the

field of learning also support the need for the creation of foundational mental structures to be in

place prior to the development of another mental structure for successful transfer. For instance,

Bransford et al, 1999, support the need for comprehension of underlying concepts, as they state:

It can be difficult for children to learn with understanding at the start; they may need to

take time to explore underlying concepts and to generate connections to other information

they possess. Pacing instruction too quickly and learning multiple topics may hinder

learning and subsequent transfer because students (a) learn only isolated sets of facts that

are not organized and connected or (b) are introduced to organizing principles that they

cannot grasp because they lack enough specific knowledge to make them meaningful (p.

46).

The opinion of Bransford and colleagues (1999) differs from Piaget in that it draws from the

novice to expert model of cognitive research (as cited by Simon, 1980; Glaser, 1992); which

describes that an expert is good at retrieving relevant knowledge because it includes a

specification of the contexts in which it is useful or termed “conditionalized” (1999, p. 31).

Research supports that when comparing the performance of novices and experts, as well as

research on learning and transfer, it is clear that experts are not all smarter; they just extract

information and patterns from a well-structured information base (National, R. C. S., 1999, p. 2).

In order to tap into “inert” knowledge Bransford and colleagues, draw from prior research (as

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 6

cited by Whitehead, 1929), where it was found that knowledge had to be “activated” for it to

become relevant (Bransford et al, 1999, p .31). This summation of cognitive views supports

learning as an internal and subjective experience influenced by interacting with the external,

resulting in mental structures (Piaget, 1964; Bransford, et al, 1999).

In recognizing that individuals are unique in their learning experience, there has been

notable analysis in the area of intelligence and learning styles. Cognitive psychologist, Howard

Gardner first published his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983, in which he proposed that

individuals demonstrate seven intelligences or abilities that could be empowered through various

learning modalities (Gardner, 2011). The characteristics of the multiple intelligences are

portrayed as Linguistic, Musical, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Bodily Kinesthetic,

Interpersonal and Intrapersonal (Gardner, 2011, p. xxii). Further definition of Interpersonal

Intelligence is a person's ability to recognize the intentions, feelings and motivations of others

whereas, Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand oneself and use that information to

regulate one's own life (Gardner, 201, p. 253). Individuals may possess several if not all and

have various levels of achievement among the multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2011, p. xxii).

The role of culture in learning. Piaget, 1964, noted that culture had an influence on

child development or maturation, as even the research of that time pointed out that all children

develop along the same lines, however, the chronological ages of these stages varied a great deal

among various global cultures (p. 178). Cultural knowledge foundation and its meaning are also

important in promoting knowledge transfer, as the understanding of culture is an individualized

experience (Bransford, et al 1999, p. 61). Papert, (1980) also argues that the influence of the

materials that a culture provides can attribute to developmental differences in children (p. 20).

Gardner, (2000) in his book entitled “Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 7

Century”, also proposes that an intelligence stems from both cultural and neural potential.

According to Gardner:

An intelligence is bio-psychological potential to process information that can be

activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of

value in a culture. Intelligences are not things that can be seen or counted.

Instead, they are potentials— presumably, neural ones— that will or will not be

activated, depending upon the values of a particular culture, the opportunities

available in that culture, and the personal decisions made by individuals and/or

their families, schoolteachers, and others (pp. 34-35).

The role of assessment in learning. In traditional learning environments children are

expected to listen to and understand what the teacher says, to gather information from the

materials presented, practice through homework, and remember the information and to produce it

on cue via a test. Many assessments only measure factual knowledge and never ask whether

students know when, where, and why to use that knowledge (Bransford et al, 1999, p. 37). There

is agreement for the need of comprehension assessment among the experts. The National, R. C.

S. (1999) also recommends that learning tools should be designed and tested with the goal of

measuring deep understanding and the acquisition of factual knowledge (p. 54). Gardner (2008)

also suggests that recently accrued developmental knowledge in children warrants measurement,

as these instruments exist and public schools have yet to employ them. (p. 173). Bransford et al,

(1999) also recommend that a “transfer” assessment be required to measure the quality of

learning experiences; as some learning experiences result in effective memory but poor transfer;

others produce effective memory plus positive transfer (p. 39). The assessment of individual

learning differences needs to play a role in assessment as well. In relating the “Multiple

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 8

Intelligences” to the public school paradigm, Gardner, (2011) argues that both Logical-

Mathematical intelligence and Linguistic intelligence possess the abilities typically measured and

taught to in traditional school environments, therefore testing measures are only accounting for

two of the intelligences (p. 352).

The role of curriculum in learning. Public curriculum is based on a one size fits all

philosophy (Gardner, 2000, p. 150.) Most curriculum design makes it difficult for students to

organize information to promote comprehension; instead, there is superficial coverage of facts

before moving on to the next topic and little time to develop relevant organized ideas (Bransford

et al, 1999, p. 30). In a study conducted by Tobin, Kahle and Fraser (1990) with students in the

study described as having advanced academic ability, the cognitive demand of the teaching and

learning was very low with materials characterized by rote memorization and recall (p. 141).

According to the investigations of the National, R. C. S. (1999), curriculum designs should

support learning for understanding with emphasis on depth over breadth, should engage students’

initial understanding, promote construction and foundation of factual knowledge in the context

of a general conceptual framework, and encourage metacognitive skills development (p. 38).

Branford et al, (1999) concur that most curriculum utilizes textbooks to present facts and

formulas, but do not correlate the examples to conditions that could be usefully provided, and

therefore fail to apply knowledge to the context that it would be useful (p. 37).

The influence of materials in the classroom among the literature form a basis to the

reconstruction of curriculum in both the consideration of the individual and the capability of

knowledge transfer. For example, knowledge that is presented in an over contextualized manner

has implication to reduce transfer, where abstract representations of knowledge can promote

transfer (Bransford, et al, p. 41). The learner requires usable knowledge to retrieve relevant

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 9

information in order to conditionalize knowledge (Bransford et al, 1999, p. 37). Bransford and

colleagues (1999) give credence to research studies that advocate the restructuring of tools and

textbooks to support the larger contexts and framework of a discipline (p.173).

The research illustrates that learning is an individual experience and cognitive process.

This paper has considered that public curriculum supports learning of the Logical-Mathematical

and Linguistic Intelligences but not individual differences as they apply to promoting learning

potential. Gardner (2011) suggests that equal consideration to the remaining classifications of

“Multiple Intelligence” be provides through the construction of support materials in the

classroom. Materials may account for various modes or combination of modes created for the

proper use of intelligences (Gardner, 2011, p. 352). Pilot schools and teachers have successfully

demonstrated the prescription of materials conveyed through Multiple Intelligence Theory

(Armstrong, 1994; Campbell et al, 1999). Specific to these materials are articulated symbol

systems, such as language or mathematics, as well as an ever-expanding family of media,

including books, pamphlets, charts, maps, television, and computer technology (Gardner, 2011,

p. 352). Since the late 1980s, there has been support for computer technologies to enable a

deeper level of learning and understanding through its interactive capabilities (Papert, 1980, p.

20; Bransford, et al, 1999, p. 203). Many technologies can function as tools to help students

learn. The challenge for education is to draw on research of human cognition to enable the

design of technologies for learning that function as scaffolds to knowledge and expertise, and

include feedback (Bransford et al, 1999, p. 202).

Constraints to Change

Several constraints contribute to the revision of the public educational perspective

(Gardner, 2000, p. 150), Respective to these are a lack of adherence of curriculum design to the

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 10

consideration of the cognitive and developmental components, and teaching strategies aligned to

insights to differences of how children learn (Gardner, 2000; Piaget, 1964). Constraints exist

relative to the teacher workforce and training standards.

Teachers require education regarding the effective use of technology in the classroom

(Blackwell and Yost, 2013). Most teachers learn subject content but there is little focus on

effective means to convey subject matter. For example, a teacher with this type of expertise can

anticipate types of student difficulties and possess the skills to tap into their student’s existing

knowledge in order to make new information meaningful (Bransford et al, 1999, p.37). Upon

consideration of teaching methods in the national design of curriculum, constraints exist in the

form of funding issues and a lack of consistency among the demographics and resources

available to schools (Clarke and Zaggerell, 2012).

The synthesis of the research supports that there is a disconnect that exists among the

current national curriculum design standards and the pace in which it is administered to allow for

comprehension, reinforced learning, learning styles and knowledge transfer (Bransford et al,

1999, p. 46; Piaget, 1964, p. 176; Gardner, 2008, p. 173). The integration of technology tools

has been a stymied process. While current national educational technology planning considers

the integration of technology tools into public schools, the increasing rate of technological

advancement adds challenges to its effective use and affordability in this domain (Ash, 2012).

Future Research

Technological advances and the future job market have now become other layers of

consideration, as these represent driving cultural forces that influence new curriculum design

standards and implementation. The educational needs of children will require consistency with

future workplace demands. In consequence, students and teachers are facing challenges in

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 11

several areas such as the gradual introduction of technology in schools, the new national

curriculum standards, the pace of the curriculum, and its companion assessments. There is

seemingly a growing need to revisit research that addresses these issues as well as individualized

learning differences.

For instance while the research of Howard Gardner and his Multiple Intelligences has

been deemed controversial it has been implemented successfully in schools (Campbell and

Campbell, 1999; Armstrong, 1994). Research conducted also supports that students experience

improved knowledge transfer through active learning and participation (Piaget, 1964, Bransford

et al, 1999). Bransford et al, 1999, conclude that many forms of curricula and instruction do not

help students conditionalize their knowledge and concurs that there are implications for the

design of curriculum, instruction and assessment in order to promote effective learning (p .31).

Research for public curriculum, is needed to address the best utilization of tools and materials in

support of the evolving technological culture. Research may also extend to effective teaching

models: could the teacher in an individualized class structure serve as both a guide and instructor

to inspiring active participation and demonstration. Given all these issues, it is public knowledge

that there is however a growing trend for Universities and school districts to extend some of their

curriculum to online learning to meet the competitive and financial yield of distance learning.

Perhaps there are lessons that can be learned in evaluating teaching and learning from this virtual

domain that can be extended to the classroom.

Conclusions

The result of psychological research points to active participation of the learner and the

consideration of different types of intellects. As noted by research, the student’s active

participation leads to knowledge transformation and retention (Bransford et al, 1999; National,

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 12

R. C. S., 1999; Piaget, 1964). If individuals can become masters of destiny, it would make sense

that there is implication for the self-directed mastery of learning. In this learning environment,

the learner becomes active and takes center stage through various mediums and available

materials mindfully developed to inspire the creation of more advanced intellectual structures.

Technology use in schools evolves to take active part in becoming a tool for learning as defined

as part of the current culture.

Research supports that long-term knowledge transfer is not the same as memorization

but should extend to comprehension. The challenge in learning is that for every mental structure

an individual creates, the comprehension of the mental structure is influenced by individual

experiences, culture and exposure to activities. Therefore, a one-box fits all paradigm in public

schools leaves many learners behind in terms of knowledge assessment scoring.

Upon synthesis of the citied research and opinions of experts, one can draw consistency

to the goals of education and the future learning environment. In summary, the goal of education

should foremost be to create a standard of learning that accommodates the building of mental

structures as these apply to individual learners based on individualized needs assessments and

then to create and provide a material rich environment that accommodates various learning types.

The teacher should then become both guide and instructor. Teachers should have the training

that allows them to engage diverse learners and form insights to learning gaps and redirect the

learner through activities and tools so that the learner will have improved ability to build mental

structures required for knowledge transfer. In this light, the learning environment is in a constant

state of dynamics where the realization of knowledge transfer takes the novice to expert and on

to the next challenge, and the expert tester now becomes the expert learner.

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 13

References

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum. Educational

Leadership, 52(3), 26+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA16473760&v=2.1&u=purdue_main&it=

r&p=PPMI&sw=w&asid=6e406ee6a205af86e5bacaab9ff3ce2b

Ash, K. (2010). U.S. Ed-tech plan urges rethinking in K-12 schools. Education Week, 29(24), 1-

1, 16, 17. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/202781524?accountid=13360

Blackwell, J., & Yost, N. (2013). Teacher education programs and technology: Preparing

teacher candidates for working with P-8 students. Childhood Education, 89(5), 325+.

Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA345276665&v=2.1&u=purdue_main&it

=r&p=PPMI&sw=w&asid=7d326933ea7bcee76d9c32dd7850066e

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain,

mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.

Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and student achievement: Success

stories from six schools. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision &

Curriculum Development (ASCD). Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Clarke, G., Sr., & Zagarell, J. (2012). Teachers and technology: A technological divide.

Childhood Education, 88(2), 136+. Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA286114031&v=2.1&u=purdue_main&it

=r&p=PPMI&sw=w&asid=26cad560ba50609f99dcb2fc112bc7d8

OUT OF THE BOX: INSIGHTS TO PEDAGOGY 14

Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New

York, NY, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Gardner, H. (2008). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.

Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (3rd Edition). New

York, NY, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

National, R. C. S. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington,

DC, USA: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning.

Journal of research in science teaching, 2(3), 176-186.

Reiser, Robert V.; Dempsey, John V. (2011). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and

Technology (3rd Edition). Pearson HE, Inc. Kindle Edition.

Tobin, K. G., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classrooms:

Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. Psychology Press. Retrieved

from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED323090.pdf