Rethink how we teach
Research in the sciences of human learning suggests that a lack of transfer is not as much a problem with the student as it is with their learning experience. In formal schooling contexts, this means that transfer is a function of how we teach our students. Any innovation in teaching would do well to address the problem of transfer. And this is where we need to rethink how we teach.
We need to innovate, but not for the sake of innovation per se. Instead, we need to innovate in ways that are consistent with, and advance, the science of how people learn. Although research in the cognitive and the learning sciences suggest several principles for designing effective teaching and learning, I focus on one key principle any innovation in teaching would do well to embody. Allow me to illustrate the principle with a thought experiment.
Imagine a carpenter wants to train his son or his daughter to learn the craft. Does he first make his child learn all the relevant knowledge from mathematics, because well, one needs arithmetic and geometry in carpentry? Does he also make his child learn all the relevant concepts in Physics, because knowledge of forces and equilibria is also critical for carpentry? How about throwing in some material science, communication skills, business management, and creativity courses in the mix too.
And when his child has not only learned all such knowledge, and passed examinations that test this knowledge in contexts that have little to do with carpentry, only then he brings his child to his shed and engages him/her in the practice of carpentry. Hopefully not. Instead, the carpenter is more likely to take his child to the shed, and engage in the authentic practices of carpentry. All knowledge and skills that the son learns is situated in the actual practice of carpentry. This is what knowledge-in-use looks like.
Coupling domain knowledge and disciplinary practice
Part of the problem with modern education systems is that we have intentionally divorced domain knowledge from the disciplinary practices of its use. Having ourselves created the problem, we then lament that our students find it difficult to transfer what they learn in school to disciplinary practices. I do not mean to be flippant, but I do paint an extreme case contrast to bring out the point. To be clear: domain knowledge and skills are important. They need to be taught. And experts need to teach them. The problem is that we are teaching them in ways that tend to decontextualised and misaligned with the disciplinary practices within which such knowledge will be used.
An obvious implication is to solve the problem of transfer at its root. This would mean aligning the practices of schooling with the practices of the discipline. Of course this is easier said than done, but then why should one expect the problems of learning to necessarily admit easy solutions. Returning to the examples, if design is a core engineering practice, then engineering knowledge and skills ought to be situated in the design process. This does not mean all knowledge is learning through the design process. What it means is that the design process then provides the context and the motivation for learning. Students should be engaged in design for the most part, which anchors their learning.
Likewise, if a core medical practice is differential diagnosis, then medical education should be anchored on differential diagnosis as the core activity. Medical students should be engaged in differential diagnosis, and most of their knowledge gets learned in the process of performing diagnoses. And likewise for other domains as well. Although I have taken the liberty of reducing a domain to one core practice, each domain is likely to have multiple core and peripheral practices. The point is that innovations in teaching should engage in the process of backward design.
Backward design process
By backward design, I mean starting with the end in mind. For example, what are the core professional practices of engineers? What do engineers really do? How does knowledge-in-use look like, that is, what kinds of knowledge, skills, tools and resources do they use in performing these practices? Once we have sense of what the disciplinary practice of engineers looks like, we can then design the teaching practices in alignment with the disciplinary practices. The same goes for other disciplines as well. What do doctors really do? What do scientists do? What do lawyers do? And so on. And then design the teaching practices in alignment with the professional practices in the domains.