In this article, the authors study why some students seem to benefit from standard physic textbook education more than others in the same class. The authors examine the learning process as a transfer of a concept framework. This hypothesis suggests that the transfer can take place in one of the following ways:

To test this hypothesis, the authors administered a test to a group of eight students. The test contained questions that would illustrate common misconceptions students might hold (such as gravity as a variable force rather than a constant acceleration). After taking the test, the students were given textbooks and expected to read the books, turning in assignments at regular intervals. For the first three assignments, the students were given feedback, allowing them to learn information that directly conflicts with misconceptions they may have previously held. The rest of the assignments did not give the students any feedback. The final four assignments allowed the students to solve problems while talking aloud. Finally, the authors administered another test, examining the same misconceptions as the first test.

The students included an explanation of their answers in the tests. This feedback technique allowed the authors to examine whether a correct answer was derived from correct knowledge or from incorrect knowledge.

The authors analyzed how the students had learned the material by observing how the students used a set of physics laws (such as gravitational acceleration is a constant) that could be learned from the material. The authors observed how the overlap between these rules could account for the correct answers in multiple areas. That is, the authors studied how knowledge acquired for one situation was applied to a different situation. The authors examined whether the acquired knowledge was taught explicitly or implicitly. They also reviewed possible reasons that knowledge was not acquired, such as inadequate instruction or improper categorization of properties.

In conclusion, the authors found that the experiment supported the hypothesis of knowledge transfer, but that perhaps this model should be examined more closely and expanded to include a more implicit type of learning model.

This article was very thorough in both background research and experimental follow-through. While possibly too detailed when describing the precise content of the questions in the body of the article, the explanation of the methodology and background leading up to the experiment was solid and well done. The exhaustive appendix, describing the questions as well as the common student misconceptions, answers any remaining questions the reader may have as to the experimental content. In addition, the authors examine the reasons the reader may have confidence in their study (see p. 180), citing how the results support the model, how independent parties have verified the authors' assessment of the student responses, and how the misconceptions demonstrated by the test have been demonstrated in numerous other studies.

This article leaves a tantalizing door open with regards to how students can be taught to use "constructive cognitive activities" (see p. 192) to enhance their learning abilities. The article seems to imply that peer interaction may play an important role in this type of knowledge acquisition.

The experimental methodology used by the authors is an excellent example of an experiment studying knowledge transfer. This methodology was thoroughly researched and documented prior to beginning the work. By expanding on a pre-existing set of experiments, the authors were able to focus their work and obtain good results.

The results of this experiment are also of interest to this course. The concept that information can be transferred as a set of ideas and that these ideas can replace existing ideas has interesting implications when examining how individuals acquire information.

This article has 45 references in the reference list.