The question of whether transference must occur to show that learning has happened is one that sits at the intersection of educational theory, cognitive psychology, and instructional practice. While transfer is often held up as the ultimate marker of meaningful learning, the reality is more complex. Learning, as a cognitive and behavioral process, can occur without the successful transference of that knowledge to new situations. However, the presence or absence of transfer reveals critical information about the depth, flexibility, and usability of what has been learned. To understand this issue fully, we must explore what constitutes learning, what transfer actually involves, and what some of the leading theorists—such as Jean Piaget, David Perkins, and John Bransford—have contributed to our understanding of the relationship between the two.
Learning is generally defined as a lasting change in behavior or understanding that results from experience, study, or instruction. This change can be observable, such as improved performance on a task, or internal, such as a new way of thinking about a concept. Traditional assessments of learning often focus on retention and recall within the context where the learning occurred. However, transfer represents a far more ambitious benchmark—it asks whether the learner can apply knowledge or skills to a novel situation, in a different context, or in response to a unique problem (Perkins & Salomon, 1992).
Jean Piaget, the renowned developmental psychologist, provides a foundation for understanding how learners progress through stages of cognitive development. For Piaget, meaningful learning is closely linked to the learner’s ability to assimilate and accommodate new information into existing cognitive schemas (Piaget, 1970). Transference, in this light, may not occur until the learner has reached a sufficient level of cognitive maturity. For instance, a child in the concrete operational stage may be able to solve arithmetic problems in a classroom but fail to apply the same logic to calculate the cost of items at a grocery store. This suggests that while learning has occurred, the ability to transfer it to a different context is still underdeveloped due to cognitive constraints.
David Perkins, a prominent voice in the study of transfer, argues that transfer is not an automatic outcome of learning. In his work on “teaching for transfer,” Perkins identifies two types of knowledge: “inert knowledge,” which is learned but rarely applied, and “active knowledge,” which is used across contexts. He emphasizes the importance of what he calls “hugging and bridging” strategies. Hugging involves keeping the learning experience close to the eventual context of application, while bridging encourages learners to explicitly make connections between what they are learning and other situations (Perkins & Salomon, 1988). Perkins’ framework reinforces the idea that learning can exist without transfer, but that instruction must be intentionally designed to promote it.
John Bransford, co-author of “How People Learn,” offers a similarly nuanced view. Bransford emphasizes the importance of developing flexible, transferable knowledge through what he calls “deep understanding.” For Bransford, transfer is most likely to occur when learners are actively engaged in constructing meaning, when they are encouraged to think metacognitively, and when they understand the underlying principles rather than just surface features (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Bransford also distinguishes between “forward-reaching transfer”—where learners anticipate how what they are learning might apply elsewhere—and “backward-reaching transfer,” where they recall previous knowledge in a new situation. This dual perspective supports the view that transfer is a desirable outcome of deep learning but not a prerequisite for confirming that learning occurred.
Empirical studies across educational settings support the notion that learning without transfer is both possible and common. Students can memorize formulas, vocabulary, or historical dates and recall them during an exam, but fail to use that information in real-world scenarios. This phenomenon reveals the difference between “school learning” and “functional learning.” Functional learning—learning that sticks and travels—requires not only content mastery but the ability to abstract, generalize, and reapply that content elsewhere. The absence of transfer in these cases does not negate that learning took place, but it does highlight its limitations.
Recent research has further illuminated the mechanisms behind transfer and its challenges. For example, Barnett and Ceci (2002) developed a taxonomy for transfer that emphasizes the importance of context, domain, and temporal distance in determining transfer success. They argue that transfer is more likely when instructional strategies help learners understand the “why” behind concepts and not just the “how.” Similarly, Lobato (2006) introduces the idea of “actor-oriented transfer,” which views transfer not as a static movement of knowledge from one setting to another but as an emergent process shaped by the learner’s interpretation of new situations. This perspective aligns with contemporary sociocultural theories of learning, which stress the role of context, tools, and social interactions in shaping how and whether transfer occurs.
In addition, research on metacognition and self-regulated learning has shown promise in fostering transfer. According to Dignath and Büttner (2008), students who receive explicit instruction in metacognitive strategies—such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own learning—are more likely to transfer knowledge across domains. This aligns with Bransford’s emphasis on deep understanding and the active construction of meaning as essential to successful transfer.
Despite this, the presence of transfer remains the clearest evidence of high-quality learning. When learners apply previously acquired knowledge to solve new problems, engage with unfamiliar content, or adapt to changing environments, they demonstrate that their learning has become internalized, flexible, and meaningful. This is especially important in today’s rapidly changing world, where the value of learning lies not only in knowledge acquisition but in the ability to adapt and apply.
To promote transfer, instructional practices must go beyond rote memorization or passive reception. Teachers must design learning experiences that engage students in active problem-solving, cross-contextual thinking, and reflection. Learners must be encouraged to ask, “Where else could this apply?” and given opportunities to practice transferring knowledge. Assessment should also evolve to capture not just what students know, but what they can do with what they know.
In conclusion, transference does not have to occur to prove that learning has happened. A student may learn something well in a limited context and still be unable to use it elsewhere. However, transfer is the highest form of evidence that learning is deep, adaptable, and valuable. The work of Piaget, Perkins, and Bransford, alongside more recent research by scholars such as Barnett, Ceci, Lobato, and Dignath, all affirm this distinction—learning is foundational, but transfer is transformational. For education to fulfill its purpose in preparing individuals for the complexities of real life, we must not only aim for learning but design intentionally for transfer.
References
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at the primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_1
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 645–673). Macmillan.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Viking Press.