INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, AND SCOPE OF LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review is the first stage of a two-stage research project by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) for the Department of Labour. The project addresses the ways employees transfer, utilise, and develop literacy, language, and numeracy (LLN) skills in the workplace; the conditions that enable this to happen; and the short- to medium-term outcomes for employees and workplaces. The second stage will consist of case studies in workplaces where workplace LLN learning programmes are being offered.

Research questions

The review focuses on three main questions.

1. How has learning transfer been defined and researched in the literature?
2. What is known about the factors that support and hinder learning transfer in workplaces?
3. What is known about factors that support and hinder transfer in relation to the transfer of LLN knowledge and skills?

This chapter briefly outlines the overall purpose of the review, and begins to address question 1 by providing definitions for terms used in this literature, as well as definitions of 'transfer'.

Chapter 2 outlines our review methodology, explaining the search strategies we used and how we selected research for inclusion in the review.

Chapter 3 examines the concept of learning transfer in depth, and asks what evidence of transfer could look like (research question 1).

Chapter 4 outlines what is known about factors that support and constrain learning transfer in the workplace (research question 2).

Chapter 5 then looks closely at the handful of studies that directly examine the transfer of literacy learning in the workplace, and relates these to what is known about the factors that support the use of literacy skills at work (research question 3).

Chapter 6 draws the threads together to highlight the empirical implications for the next stage of the project.

Chapter 7 concludes with a discussion of the implications for future research.

Purpose and background

This literature review was commissioned by the Department of Labour to inform its research programme on adult LLN provision in the workplace. LLN skills are important in the workplace because low levels of literacy, language and numeracy (LLN) are a barrier to individuals gaining and retaining employment and progressing in the labour market.

As part of the Department's research programme, Benseman (2010) undertook a small case study at a single workplace over six months to investigate the transfer of learning between an LLN workplace programme and the workplace. His study indicated that learners were applying their LLN learning to their work in a variety of ways, and identified some factors that appeared to be important to the transfer process. Benseman recommended that a larger scale study be undertaken that explored the concept of learning transfer in greater depth and across a range of different work contexts, with a literature review as the first step.

At an early stage of the review it was discovered that there is very little published literature that specifically considers the transfer of literacy and numeracy learning. Only a handful of studies were identified. For this reason the scope of the review was broadened to include key articles in the literature on learning transfer, with a particular focus on work-based learning.

Scope of transfer as a concept

Many of the research studies we examined appear to take the term 'transfer' as a given. In some respects this is understandable given the common-sense understanding that skills and knowledge acquired in one setting are readily used (or 'transferred') to another situation in a meaningful way. But how we think about what this actually entails influences the conditions we see as relevant to any attempt to increase the chances transfer will happen. Here matters are not so self-evidently common sense. It is important to be clear about how we think about the act of learning and the scope of literacy, language, and numeracy. All these are contested terms, as we now briefly outline.

Framing learning as a concept

There is no single, general definition of learning (Hager and Hodkinson, 2009). One classic definition states that 'learning can be broadly defined as any process that in living organisms leads to permanent capacity changes and which is not solely due to biological maturation or aging' (Illeris, 2009, p 7). Again, this seems like common sense, but how learning happens is not made clear so definitions such as this cannot take us very far. Once we begin to consider the 'how' of learning, it quickly becomes apparent that different understandings of the nature of knowledge, learners, and learning lead to very different sorts of considerations and conclusions.

Many of the metaphors we use for learning are about learning as acquisition. Knowledge is 'out there' waiting to be deposited into the brain and withdrawn again when needed. In the most uncritical versions of this view, the act of learning happens in the same way, independent of the learner, and learning is likely to be seen as an exercise in training. This perspective on learning underpins the belief that if you run a course on how to do something then participants should learn it, and be able to do it back on the job. If they don't, a likely conclusion is that they can't or won't learn (assuming the course is seen to be relevant and well run).

There are problems with thinking about learning in these simple terms (often described as behaviourist theories of learning). If this view were generally true, everyone who read a physics text book would take away the same knowledge from their reading. Everyone who was trained in the same skill would be able to do it in the same way. We know that is not the case. What you already know, your interest in the topic, and the learning strategies you know how to use, all influence what you can learn and the meaning you take from that learning. This way of thinking places the emphasis on the learner and the ways they build new understandings by connecting new learning to what they already know. Learning is not independent of the learner and is a process of active construction (cognitive theories of learning take this view). When learning fails to happen, problems are seen to reside with the construction processes learners use and teachers design. For example, more effective teachers will link learning to what their students already know.

Cognitive theories of learning are supported by what is known about how the brain works but are no longer seen to be sufficiently broad in scope to explain all the complexities of learning. Just as a brain can operate independent of a body, a learner is located in a context that will impact on what and how they learn. Here, learning is situated-it takes place in a social system (sociocultural theories of learning take this view). People learn from teachers and peers, but also by participating with and alongside others in day-to-day activities (Engeström, 2004). This perspective is particularly relevant to informal learning in the workplace.^[1] If learning fails to happen, the conditions under which it is taking place will be implicated, not just the individual and the effort they are prepared to make.

If we consider the implications of combining both cognitive and sociocultural ways of thinking about learning, its full complexity for each individual begins to come into view, along with the implications for workplace learning and transfer:

Motivation to engage in the process of learning is seen as determined by their previous experiences ... these interact with organisational constraints in four main areas: in the extent to which the organisation facilitates access to knowledge and information; in the opportunity it provides to practice [sic] and develop new skills; in the provision of effective support for the learning process; and the extent to which it provides rewards. (Ashton, 2004, p 45, cited in Unwin et al, 2005, pp 7-8)

There is one more important idea to add to this necessarily brief overview of the scope of learning as a concept. Learning changes people. Once you really know something in a new way, there is usually no going back. 'Seeing the world with new eyes' is one metaphor that describes this type of change. Mezirow's (2000) theory of transformative learning spells out some implications of this simple but powerful idea by drawing attention to 'how we learn to negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others-to gain greater control over our lives as socially responsible, clear thinking decision makers' (p 8).

This theory has important implications for transfer because people who develop greater 'agency' over their learning may be more likely to see how learning from other contexts (training programmes or from previous work or life experiences) can be used in the workplace, and have the self-confidence to use their new knowledge and skills.

If a transformative view of learning has implications for transfer, do behaviourist, cognitive, and sociocultural views of learning also impact on how we think about what transfer is and how it can happen? This is the question we consider next.

How do views of learning impact on views of transfer?

There is no more important topic in the whole psychology of learning than transfer of learning ... practically all educational and training programs are built on the foundational premise that human beings have the ability to transfer what they have learned from one situation to another. (Desse, 1958, The Psychology of Learning, cited in Haskell, 2001, pp 2-3)

Most definitions of transfer of learning have in common the notion that transfer involves 'carrying' learning from one context into another:

Transfer of learning is our use of past learning when learning something new and the application of that learning to both similar and new situations. (Haskell, 2001, p xiii)

Transfer of learning means that experience or performance on one task influences performance on some subsequent task. (Ellis, 1965, p 3)

It is interesting to consider that definitions such as these could be read in either a behaviourist or a cognitive framing of learning. They tell us nothing about how active the learner is in the meaning-making process, although this could simply be assumed. It does seem unlikely that their authors would have been drawing on sociocultural framing since there is no mention of the role played by contexts. This is not surprising. Until recently, sociocultural theorists tended to see the situated nature of learning as a barrier to transfer (Taylor et al, 2008). Illustrating their thinking, the well-known sociocultural theorist Jean Lave once wrote that the concept of transfer is 'an extraordinarily narrow and barren account of how knowledgeable persons make their way among multiply interrelated settings' (Lave, 1996, p 15, reported in Hager and Hodkinson, 2009, p 619). Hager and Hodkinson (2009) recommend abandoning the transfer metaphor altogether because transfer aligns with outdated and discredited views of learning as acquisition, whereas it is people who move from context to context, not what is learnt. Taylor et al (2009) make an important contribution to the debate by spelling out the implications of recent transfer research in the school sector for resolving this dilemma:

Engle (2006) provides a persuasive counter-argument to the commonly held notion that transfer and situativity are incommensurable. He argues that contexts can be socially framed to create intercontextuality. (Taylor et al, 2009, p 10)

The idea of intercontextuality draws attention to the teacher's role in framing both the context of the learning and the potential transfer context so that the learner is supported to see the links between them. It is not left up to the learner to see the potential connections, or not. Engle (2006) demonstrated how good teachers often do this intuitively when they notice and respond to connections that might otherwise go unnoticed, often talking of these links as if they were the student's idea, not their own. Frameable aspects of learning include 'time, location, participants, topics, roles and practices, and purposes' (Taylor et al, 2009, p 10). This idea could be a very useful lens to bring to the analysis of transfer of LLN learning.

Literacy, language, and numeracy as concepts

Just as there are multiple ways of thinking about the scope of learning and of transfer of learning, there are multiple ways to understand the LLN knowledge and skills at the heart of this project.

Literacy can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, as discussed in the recent NZCER literature review for the Department of Labour, Engaging Young People/Young Adults in Literacy, Language and Numeracy (Whatman et al, 2009). Our study foregrounds transfer, so we framed the literature review using relatively traditional understandings of literacy as the written and oral language people use in everyday life and work. We have not considered ideas such as multimodal literacy, although we have kept the situated nature of literacy in mind. For example, we are aware that literacy plays out differently for different people in different contexts, and these contexts may change over time. An employee may begin work able to handle the literacy demands of their work, yet find that demands change and they no longer meet expectations. An example of changing demands is where a workplace moves from using primarily oral communication patterns to requiring written documentation.

At one time, 'literacy' referred specifically to the written word, and 'language' tended to mean oral skills. However, recent definitions include speaking and listening, along with reading and writing, as part of literacy (Whatman et al, 2009). The Literacy, Language and Numeracy Action Plan 2008-2012 (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008a) defines literacy in a way that includes language:

... the written and oral language people use in their everyday life and work; it includes reading, writing, speaking and listening. (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008a, p 6)

There is no universally accepted definition of numeracy (Benseman et al, 2005; Tout and Schmitt, 2003). For example, Whatman et al (2009) report a study showing that industry representatives agreed about the importance of numeracy skills, but were less clear about what the term numeracy conveyed to them. They also tended to describe numeracy in terms of primary school-level number skills rather than in terms of knowing the mathematics skills that are appropriate in particular situations and how to use them competently to solve problems. In this review, we use the Tertiary Education Commission's definition of numeracy:

Numeracy is the bridge between mathematics and real life. A person's numeracy refers to their knowledge and understanding of mathematical concepts and their ability to use their mathematical knowledge to meet the varied demands of their personal, study and work lives. (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008b, p 59)

Having laid out the scope of the way we use key terms in this review, we turn now to the processes by which the review was conducted.

---

---