Transfer of Training Between Cognitive Subskills: Is Knowledge Use Specific?

Abstract

The dominant theory of transfer of training is a theory of "common elements" based on Anderson′s ACT* theory of skill acquisition (Singley & Anderson, 1989). In this theory, the knowledge acquired while learning a skill is encapsulated in procedures called production rules. Transfer between tasks is predicted to occur to the extent that the two tasks share production rules or "common elements." This leads to a principle of "use specificity of knowledge" which makes the strong statement that knowledge acquired in the practice of one subskill (such as writing a computer program) will not transfer to performance in a related subskill (such as understanding a computer program), even through the two subskills rest on a shared declarative knowledge base (such as definitions of programming language instructions) (McKendree & Anderson, 1987). Our research provides a test of the ACT* predictions of transfer and the use-specificity principle, when considering transfer between two subtasks within the acquisition of computer programming skill. First we provide detailed a priori transfer predictions based on a task analysis and production system simulation model of two programming subtasks: the evaluation and generation of LISP instructions. Next, we present results from an empirical study of training and transfer between these two subtasks. Comparisons between empirical results and simulation predictions reveal that there is substantially more transfer between subtasks than was predicted. In a final study we provide evidence that these results are due to the elaboration of declarative knowledge. We conclude that the emphasis on procedural transfer currently dominating the skill acquisition literature overlooks important sources of transfer and overestimates the extent to which knowledge is use specific.