Studies in cross education. V. Theoretical

• Published in: Psychological review 1936-03, Vol.43 (2), p.149-178
• Main Author: Cook, T. W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Education; Human; Maze Learning; Motor Skills; Transfer (Learning)
• ISSN: 0033-295X; 1939-1471
• DOI: 10.1037/h0054185

No adequate theory has been proposed to account for the phenomena of transfer of learning. In cross-education studies, Bray and others obtained transfer between opposite symmetrical, non-symmetrical, and unilateral members, the amount varying with the location of the muscle groups relative to one another, with the amount of practice, and with the percentage gain in the practice series. It is equal in amount for mirror tracing and blindfold maze learning, and is as permanent as direct practice effects. Explanatory theories can be divided into the dualistic type and the monistic type. The former assumes that two kinds of learning are involved--pure habit, which does not transfer, and intelligent generalization, which does. The monistic type, advocated by Thorndike, assumes that transfer is a function of the number of identical elements involved. Bruce's theory is limited to paired-associate situations and involves too broad a definition of stimulus. In general these theories neglect the dynamic approach. Gestalt theory is dynamic, but offers no solution of the problem. On the physiological side, Lashley emphasized that motor skills are independent of any particular bodily member and refuted the theory of common neural elements.