Lewis & al 2005

Organization Science informs ®

Vol. 16, No. 6, November–December 2005, pp. 581–598 doi 10.1287/orsc.1050.0143
issn 1047-7039 eissn 1526-5455 05 1606 0581 © 2005 INFORMS

Transactive Memory Systems, Learning, and
Learning Transfer
Kyle Lewis, Donald Lange, Lynette Gillis
Department of Management, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station B6300, Austin, Texas 78712-0210
{kyle.lewis@mccombs.utexas.edu, donald.lange@phd.mccombs.utexas.edu, lynette.gillis@phd.mccombs.utexas.edu}

K nowledge embedded in a group’s structures and processes can be leveraged to create sustainable advantage for orga-
nizations. We propose that knowledge embedded with a transactive memory system (TMS) helps groups apply prior
learning to new tasks and develop an abstract understanding of a problem domain, leading to sustained performance. We
present a framework for understanding TMSs as learning systems that affect group learning and learning transfer, and we
test the major outcomes of the framework in an empirical study. We found that groups with a prior TMS and experience
with two tasks in the same domain were more likely to develop an abstract understanding of the principles relevant to the
task domain—a critical factor for learning transfer in general. We did not, however, find strong support for our contention
that a TMS facilitates learning transfer after experience with only a single task. Further examinations of our findings
showed that the extent to which members maintained expertise across tasks influenced the degree of learning transfer,
especially for groups whose members had previously developed a TMS with another group. Our findings show that a TMS
has broader benefits beyond the task for which it first developed because a TMS affects members’ ability to apply prior
learning and develop a collective, abstract understanding of the task domain. More generally, our study demonstrates that
TMSs influence group learning and learning transfer. We discuss our study’s implications for practice and for TMS and
group learning theories.
Key words: learning; transactive memory

1. Introduction knowledge, coordinate members’ interactions more
Group performance in contexts as varied as product effectively, and perform at higher levels than do groups
development, consulting, research and development, and without a TMS (Liang et al. 1995; Moreland 1999;
top management depends on the collaborative processes Moreland et al. 1996, 1998; Moreland and Myaskovsky
members use to combine and integrate their unique 2000).
knowledge. As members collaborate, they encode, inter- These laboratory studies were instrumental in bring-
pret, and recall information together, and in so doing ing the TMS concept and its effects to the attention
they create knowledge that becomes embedded in of researchers and practitioners. An objective of these
a group’s structures and processes (Moreland 1999). studies was to show how a TMS enhances task perfor-
Embedded knowledge is difficult to recognize and mea- mance on the same task for which the TMS first devel-
sure, but it is also difficult to imitate, making it a key oped. However, that focus does not capture the fact that
point of leverage for organizations (Argote and Ingram most organizational workgroups perform a variety of
2000). The goal of this study is to explain how embed- tasks, either in the context of a single project, or across
ded knowledge can be leveraged to create sustained sequential streams of projects over time (Waller et al.
group performance. We examine knowledge embedded 2002). Knowing whether the effects of a TMS persist in
with a group’s transactive memory system (TMS), which dynamic task environments is critical to understanding
we argue influences group learning and performance the real impact of TMSs in organizations. Several recent
across several tasks. field studies (Austin 2003, Faraj and Sproull 2000, Lewis
A TMS is a collective memory system for encoding, 2003) provide early evidence that TMSs may have long-
storing, retrieving, and communicating group knowl- term value in ongoing groups, but none of these stud-
edge (Hollingshead 2001, Wegner 1986). TMSs develop ies specifically examines whether the effects of a TMS
over time as group members communicate, observe each extend beyond the task for which it first developed.
other’s actions, and come to rely on one another to We offer an explanation for the positive effects of
be responsible for different but complementary areas of a TMS on group performance that generally has been
expertise. Laboratory studies of TMSs demonstrate that overlooked by group TMS research: TMSs help mem-
in groups that develop a TMS, members collectively bers learn, both individually and collectively. We con-
remember and apply a greater amount of task-critical ceptualize TMSs as learning systems that affect group
581

Lewis et al.: Transactive Memory Systems, Learning, and Learning Transfer
582 Organization Science 16(6), pp. 581–598, © 2005 INFORMS

learning and learning transfer to produce sustained predictions. We conclude by discussing the implications
group performance. Drawing on TMS theory (Wegner of these results and by offering recommendations for
1986, Wegner et al. 1985), and on learning and learn- capitalizing on the value of TMSs in organizations.
ing transfer theories (e.g., Reeves and Weisberg 1994,
Singley and Anderson 1989), we develop a framework
to explain: (1) how a TMS promotes cycles of learning 2. TMS-Learning Framework
that produce not only knowledge that is relevant for the Our TMS-learning framework shows that a TMS pro-
current task, but also transferable knowledge that can be duces cycles of learning with effects that extend beyond
applied to other tasks in the same domain, and (2) how a the task for which the TMS first developed, to other
TMS helps members collectively apply prior knowledge tasks that a group performs. We adopt Argote’s (1999,
to benefit performance in new task contexts. p. 131) definition of group learning as a process wherein
This learning perspective is useful for understanding members share their own knowledge, generate new
the value of TMSs in organizations, especially those knowledge, and evaluate and combine this knowledge.
organizations in which leveraging prior knowledge by Our use of the term learning transfer is consistent with
transferring learning across contexts or to different cus- Singley and Anderson (1989) and Cormier and Hagman
tomers is critical to firm performance (Argote 1999). (1987); learning transfer is defined as occurring when
For such firms, leveraging experience gained on one knowledge acquired in one situation affects learning or
task to produce efficiencies and higher-quality products performance in other situations. We refer to learning
and services is critical to both winning new business that occurs as a consequence of having developed a
and increasing the likelihood that future activities are TMS as TMS learning. We refer to the learning trans-
profitable. fer facilitated by a TMS as TMS-learning transfer. The
In sections that follow, we present a framework for TMS-learning framework is depicted in Figure 1. The
understanding TMSs as learning systems that includes framework describes the learning processes, knowledge
predictions about the effects of TMSs on group learn- outcomes, and transfer mechanisms for a group whose
ing, learning transfer, and performance, and we present members have no prior history together, as the group
the results of an empirical study designed to test our performs several tasks.

Figure 1 TMS-Learning Framework
Activities:
Perform
Develop TMS Perform Task 1 Perform Task 2
subsequent tasks
Learning Learning Learning
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
(Section 2.1) (Section 2.2) (Section 2.3)

1 TMS 2 3

TMS Learning TMS Learning TMS Learning
Shared location information Refined location information Increasingly abstract higher-
More individual lower-order Additional shared higher-order order knowledge
information (expertise) information Understanding of underlying
TMS processes for encoding, Elaborated, contextualized principles of task domain
storing, retrieving knowledge
Shared higher-order Patterns for communicating,
information retrieving information

Performance Mechanisms Transfer Mechanisms Learning/Transfer Mechanisms
Availability of task-relevant Transferable knowledge Interactive cueing that facilitates
expertise structures analogical encoding
Retrieval, coordination, Recognition, retrieval, and Shared higher-order knowledge
utilization of expertise mapping of transactive that facilitates collective
knowledge induction

Evidence of abstract learning/
Evidence of TMS learning
Evidence of TMS learning: transfer:
transfer:
Task 1 performance Strategic knowledge of
Task 2 performance
(Tested by H1) task domain
(Tested by H2 and H4)
(Tested by H3 and H5)

Organization Science 16(6), pp. 581–598, © 2005 INFORMS 583

Our TMS-learning framework applies to those groups known as the location for software engineering infor-
for which TMSs are especially helpful—groups that mation. Similarly, Tim might come to be known as the
perform complex, divisible tasks that require consider- location for information about product sales and mar-
able knowledge (Moreland et al. 1996). Divisible tasks keting, and Mina might be known as the location for
(Steiner 1972) allow members to divide the cognitive customer support information. We return to this example
labor for the task and integrate knowledge possessed throughout this section.
by different members. More generally, our framework Also stored in the TMS structure are the specific facts
applies to task-oriented workgroups whose members and details, or lower-order information, that each mem-
share responsibility for producing group outcomes, and ber possesses about a particular topic (Wegner et al.
whose performance depends on coordinating and inte- 1985). In the product management group example above,
grating the various skills, knowledge, and activities lower-order information in the TMS structure might
of group members. Some examples of groups where include particulars about recently implemented function-
our framework applies include crews, product develop- ality and bug fixes (lower-order information possessed
ment teams, consulting and other project teams, research by Joanne), data about product sales performance for the
and development teams, self-managing teams, and top last two quarters in each customer market (possessed by
management teams. Our framework does not apply Tim), and information relevant to complaints received
to workgroups that have loosely defined membership, from customers (possessed by Mina).
no definable collaborative task, or low coordination The location information and lower-order information
and specialization needs. Groups with one or more of that make up the initial TMS structure affect what and
these attributes include informal groups, interest groups, how much each member decides to learn. In particu-
advice groups, ad hoc committees, and communities of lar, an understanding of others’ expertise affects a mem-
practice. ber’s choice to learn in an area other than those already
The TMS-learning transfer effects described by our associated with another member (Hollingshead 2001,
framework are bounded by the limits on learning trans- Wittenbaum et al. 1998). As a result, individual members
fer in general. Learning transfer is limited to settings come to specialize in different areas, and the group’s
in which the tasks are functionally similar (Singley and knowledge becomes more differentiated. Furthermore,
Anderson 1989)—that is, when the tasks share similar when members rely on other members to be responsible
task elements and when the strategies used to perform for information in their respective specialty areas, each
one task are applicable to the other. Furthermore, learn- member is free to develop more knowledge in his or her
ing transfer is possible only when an individual’s prior own specialty area (Hollingshead 1998, Wegner et al.
knowledge is in some way relevant to the transfer task. 1991). In these ways, the initial TMS structure affects
Thus, our framework applies to tasks that are function- the content and extent of each member’s learning.
ally similar, and to tasks for which members’ learning Transactive processes (Wegner et al. 1985), the second
can be relevant. Finally, because our specific interest is component of a TMS, are established during Learning
in the effects of TMSs on learning and performance, Cycle 1 through a group’s early interactions. Transactive
other social or attitudinal factors that may influence processes function through the interaction and commu-
group processes and performance are not explicitly inte- nication among members to encode, store, and retrieve
grated into the framework. The TMS-learning frame- knowledge relevant to the group’s task. When members
work is represented in terms of three TMS-learning first communicate, they rely on the initial TMS structure
cycles, each of which is described below. to establish transactive processes. For example, mem-
bers query others about information they presume to be
2.1. Learning Cycle 1: Initial TMS Learning associated with each member and allocate new informa-
The first learning cycle produces a TMS, consist- tion encountered by the group to the appropriate mem-
ing of both an initial TMS structure—an organized ber. Using location information, a member can retrieve
store of knowledge that is contained within members’ information quickly and efficiently when needed for the
memories—and a set of transactive processes that mem- task, without having to possess that information him or
bers use to encode, store, and retrieve that knowledge herself.
(Wegner et al. 1985). A TMS begins to develop when Transactive processes, in turn, affect the TMS struc-
group members start to associate individual members ture. First, communicating helps members gain a more
with specific areas of knowledge. Information about accurate understanding of what members know (or do
members’ expertise is stored in the TMS structure as not know), and over the course of repeated interactions,
location information (Wegner et al. 1985).1 Take, for makes members’ location information more similar and
example, a group tasked with managing a software prod- more accurate. Second, interacting can lead to what
uct, composed of members Joanne, Tim, and Mina. Wegner refers to as integrations of members’ knowledge
Members might come to associate Joanne with informa- (Wegner et al. 1985). Integrations result when mem-
tion about software and design—Joanne would then be bers discover links between members’ knowledge and


create new knowledge that no member had previously performance. TMS learning occurs, for example, while
possessed. For example, suppose Joanne, Tim, and Mina the group performs its task. When a group performs its
are discussing lagging sales of their software product. task, members encode and store new information about
During their discussion, members explore their respec- the task, other members, and other members’ knowl-
tive sets of lower-order information (i.e., details about edge (Brandon and Hollingshead 2004). Learning dur-
software engineering, sales, and customers) that are rele- ing task performance comprises Learning Cycle 2 of our
vant to information about sales performance. Integrating TMS-learning framework. Learning by doing is espe-
their views may lead the members to a group-generated cially important when the context is integral to perfor-
solution—for example, the recognition that customers mance (Argote 1999), for example, when learning occurs
from a particular market segment have been complain- in the presence of other group members. Learning by
ing about product functionality alterations in the current doing affects both parts of a TMS—the TMS structure
product release. As a consequence of their collective and the set of transactive processes that operate on that
discovery, members integrate relevant details about soft- structure.
ware engineering, sales, and customers, and encode that Performing a group task affects the information
information into their TMS. Integrated information is encoded and stored in the TMS structure in at least three
encoded as shared higher-order information, defined as ways. First, seeing what works and does not work and
the “topic, theme, or gist” of some set of lower-order observing how individuals perform individually and col-
information (Wegner et al. 1985, p. 264). In the prod- lectively may cause revisions or refinements to mem-
uct management group example, a shared higher-order bers’ understanding of who knows what (i.e., location
topic, “determinants of declining sales,” might repre- information). Second, as members share and discuss
sent members’ newly discovered knowledge about the information, they may discover new ways that individu-
causes of sales problems in a particular market segment. als’ lower-order information can be integrated as shared
The shared higher-order topic points to specific lower- higher-order information (Wegner et al. 1985). Third,
order information about product functionality, sales fig- observing interactions and taking part in discussions
ures, and complaining customers that all members can during which knowledge is exchanged helps members
retrieve. Thus, relying on an initial TMS structure and develop a more elaborated, contextualized understand-
set of transactive processes can produce new collective ing of their own knowledge. A semantically elaborated
knowledge that is stored as higher-order information in memory (cf. Anderson and Reder 1979, Wegner et al.
the TMS. 1985) results when a member draws inferences about an
Articulating the processes involved in developing a item of information and considers its meaning in rela-
TMS reveals the links between TMSs and individual tion to other information. Observing other members and
and collective learning. By the end of Learning Cycle 1, taking part in group discussions help a member build
members will have learned who possesses what exper- elaborated knowledge structures that represent how a
tise, developed new member-level knowledge in the form member’s own knowledge fits with and builds on other
of specialized expertise, and developed new collective members’ task-related knowledge. Marks et al. (2002,
knowledge in the form of shared higher-order informa- p. 4) refer to this type of knowledge as “interrole knowl-
tion. Ultimately, the effects of Learning Cycle 1 are evi- edge,” an understanding of the content of and interre-
dent in the group’s performance on the task for which lationships among members’ knowledge. Their research
the TMS developed. Past TMS research demonstrates
found that when members were aware of one another’s
that groups perform better when they develop and rely
jobs, roles, and expertise, they developed shared concep-
on established TMS structures and processes (e.g., Liang
tualizations of interrole knowledge, which in turn pos-
et al. 1995). Learning Cycle 1 produces those struc-
itively influenced group coordination and performance.
tures and processes, as well as TMS learning, to make a
We expect that by simultaneously refining location infor-
greater amount of relevant knowledge available for task
mation and facilitating a contextualized understanding
processing. To replicate past research findings and lay
of members’ knowledge, learning by doing will produce
the foundation for predictions about subsequent learning
shared conceptualizations of interrole knowledge.
cycles, we hypothesize that:
In addition to affecting the TMS structure, learning by
Hypothesis 1. Groups with a TMS (groups that have doing affects transactive processes. Performing the task
completed Learning Cycle 1) will demonstrate higher provides feedback about the efficacy of interactions for
task performance than will groups with no TMS. retrieving and sharing information and helps set patterns
for future interaction. Research on habitual routines in
2.2. Learning Cycle 2: Learning by Doing groups suggests that patterned interactions do develop in
Our learning systems perspective suggests that TMS groups, and that they develop very quickly (cf. Gersick
learning continues after a TMS has developed, and that and Hackman 1990, Hackman and Morris 1975). Even
this learning has effects that extend beyond initial task while a group performs a single task, there are likely


to be many opportunities to execute patterns of com- to learning transfer described above. We contend that
munication and elicitation (Rulke and Rau 2000). For Learning Cycle 2 influences the degree to which mem-
example, a member who repeatedly queries others dur- bers transfer their prior learning because: (1) learning by
ing task performance might initiate a pattern of interac- doing helps create abstract knowledge structures stored
tion characterized by members volunteering information within the TMS structure, and (2) utilizing an estab-
only after being asked. A different pattern might emerge lished TMS both helps members collectively recognize
in response to a member who withholds information functional similarities and underlying principles com-
from his/her expertise area—others might become more mon to tasks, and helps members retrieve and map
aggressive in asking for information from that mem- prior knowledge and problem-solving strategies to the
ber, or they might forego interacting with that member new task.
altogether. 2.2.2. Transferable Knowledge Structures. Learning
In sum, learning by doing during task performance Cycle 2 produces three types of transferable knowledge
helps members refine location information and develop that can be relevant in new task contexts. First, indi-
an elaborated, contextualized understanding of how vidual knowledge produced from learning by doing is
their own task-relevant knowledge relates to others’ elaborated and contextualized as a result of members
task-relevant knowledge. Learning Cycle 2 also helps learning more about their own specializations and more
establish patterns for communicating and retrieving about how their knowledge relates to others’ knowl-
information, which reduce uncertainty about how group edge and to the task. Individuals with more elaborate,
interactions ought to proceed (Gersick and Hackman abstract representations of task-relevant knowledge are
1990). Learning Cycle 2 has the effect of making groups more likely to identify when tasks are indeed function-
more effective and efficient at performing the same task ally similar and recognize how their prior knowledge
for which the TMS initially developed. We argue that applies in a novel context. Second, shared location infor-
Learning Cycle 2 also affects tasks other than the task mation refined during Learning Cycle 2 will remain
for which a TMS initially developed, by facilitating useful in a new task context as long as membership
transfer of learning across tasks. and expertise specializations remain somewhat stable.
2.2.1. TMSs and Learning Transfer. Individuals are Finally, shared higher-order information is likely to
often unable to transfer learning from one situation to remain relevant when members recognize that tasks
another because they fail to notice the functional simi- have underlying principles and elements in common. In
larities and underlying principles common across tasks our product management group example, market sales
(Singley and Anderson 1989). Research on individual- trends, software functionality, and customer feedback are
level learning transfer shows that whether a person key task elements relevant to the group’s initial task. The
who has acquired knowledge in one situation applies group members integrated these task elements under the
it to other situations depends largely upon that per- higher-order concept “determinants of declining sales.”
son’s mental representation of the knowledge (Reeves If the group recognizes that these same task elements
and Weisberg 1994). Individuals who have developed an also apply to a different product context, they will be
abstract mental representation of the problem domain able to draw on the same shared higher-order concept
are more likely to recognize when and how prior learn- to retrieve specific sales, software engineering, and cus-
ing will apply to a novel task. Without an abstract tomer support information to diagnose sales problems
understanding of the underlying principles relevant to a with the new product. Thus, knowledge produced by
domain, however, individuals are more likely to focus TMS-learning cycles is likely to be useful across tasks
on the superficial features of a task and fail to recognize that share similar elements and underlying principles.
that previously learned procedures and strategies could 2.2.3. Recognition, Retrieval, and Mapping of
be used to solve the problem. Given a group bias for Transactive Knowledge. Utilizing an established TMS
discussing shared information (Stasser and Titus 1985), affects the degree to which members actually transfer
the more members that fail to notice functional simi- prior knowledge by helping members recognize task
larities across problems, the more likely it is that the similarities and by facilitating retrieval and mapping of
group will favor discussion of the superficial features prior learning to a new task. Transactive retrieval pro-
over the underlying principles relevant to both problems. cesses refined in Learning Cycle 2 increase the like-
In sum, the way that prior knowledge is organized affects lihood that members recognize how prior lower-order
two preconditions of learning transfer: (1) recognition of and higher-order knowledge apply to the task. Transac-
functional similarities across problems, and (2) mapping tive retrieval processes are characterized by interactive
of prior knowledge and learned problem-solving strate- cueing of members’ recall, a sequential, iterative pro-
gies to the new problem (Bassok 1990). cess in which partners cue information from the other’s
We argue that having developed and utilized a TMS memory (Hollingshead 1998, Wegner et al. 1985). In a
on a task helps groups overcome the impediments group context, interactive cueing involves one member


cueing recall of another member’s knowledge, which in 2.3. Learning Cycle 3 and Beyond: Generalizing to
turn helps members recall different information relevant the Task Domain
to the group’s task. Interactive cueing that occurs in a TMS learning occurs not only as members perform
novel task context can help members retrieve knowledge their initial task, but also as they perform a subse-
that they would not otherwise recognize as relevant to quent (transfer) task. In particular, performing a second
the new task. For example, suppose one member recog- task in the same domain creates increasingly abstract
nizes that the initial and new task share a common ele- knowledge about the principles underlying both tasks.
ment. When that member uses a commonly understood Research on analogical encoding (e.g., Gentner et al.
label for previously encoded information related to the 2003, Loewenstein et al. 1999) shows that comparing
task element, it triggers associations in other members’ two different but analogous problems helps individuals
minds. Given this cue, other members can locate and understand the underlying structure common to both. In
retrieve detailed lower-order information relevant to the a recent study, Gentner et al. (2003) found that indi-
new task. By relating the new task context to the con- viduals prompted by researchers to compare two differ-
text in which information was first encoded, interactive ent negotiation problems not only recognized common
cueing processes improve the chances that what mem- task features, but also developed an abstract understand-
bers learned on the initial task will transfer (Singley and ing of the underlying principles of the problem domain.
Anderson 1989). By promoting the abstraction of concepts related to the
Learning Cycle 2 also establishes patterns of inter-
domain, analogical encoding helps individuals recall and
action that are likely to persist in a new task context,
transfer prior knowledge across tasks (Gentner et al.
especially when members perceive that the initial and
2003, p. 394).
new tasks are functionally similar. Members are likely
Related conclusions can be drawn from the research
to execute the same patterns established on an initial
on collective induction (e.g., Laughlin 1999, Laughlin
task, even without explicitly discussing their applicabil-
ity or efficacy (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002, Gersick and and Bonner 1999, Laughlin and Hollingshead 1995).
Hackman 1990, Louis and Sutton 1991). Interaction pat- Collective induction refers to the processes by which a
terns thought to have been successful in the past should group infers some general principle or rule from con-
remain useful for guiding efficient transactive processes crete examples of that principle. The process of col-
and helping members retrieve and share task-relevant lective induction involves members observing patterns,
knowledge. Having developed a shared conceptualiza- regularities, and relationships across tasks in a domain,
tion of interrole knowledge is likely to further reinforce proposing and evaluating hypotheses to account for
these interaction patterns, because the shared concep- those patterns, and eventually converging on the cor-
tualizations contain knowledge about the sequence of rect principle or rule that underlies the domain tasks
interdependent activities needed to accomplish a task (Laughlin 1999). Collective induction research shows
(Marks et al. 2002). Routinized interactions can be prob- that groups tend to be good at inferring general princi-
lematic if groups execute the same patterns in inappro- ples from several examples, in part because groups share
priate situations and without full deliberation about their a conceptual system of ideas that helps members realize
probable effects (Gersick and Hackman 1990, Louis when a proposed solution is correct (Laughlin 1999).
and Sutton 1991). When different tasks are functionally We propose two reasons that having developed a TMS
similar, however, the transfer of established interaction in the past will facilitate both analogical encoding and
patterns is not likely to be detrimental. On the con- collective induction. First, a prior TMS is likely to facil-
trary, we expect that when members recognize that tasks itate analogical encoding because the interactive cue-
share common elements and underlying principles, and ing typical of established TMS processes helps members
when they draw on established interaction patterns, they recognize functional similarities across tasks and, in so
will be more likely to retrieve knowledge critical to the doing, prompts members to make comparisons across
new task. tasks. Prompting individuals to compare across prob-
The above arguments suggest that learning by doing lems is known to improve analogical encoding (Gentner
in Learning Cycle 2 helps members leverage their TMS et al. 2003). Second, prior TMS-learning cycles pro-
learning and transfer what they have learned to a new duce shared higher-order information, an abstract form
task context. The effects of prior learning and learn- of knowledge that links each member’s knowledge to
ing transfer are properly measured by performance on a specific knowledge about the task. When the same
transfer task (cf. Singley and Anderson 1989). Thus, we members experience a second task together, their higher-
hypothesize that: order knowledge becomes further elaborated, as mem-
Hypothesis 2. Groups that have previously devel- bers form associations between what they and others
oped and utilized a TMS on one task will perform better know and between the initial task and the subsequent
on a subsequent, similar task than will groups with no task. These higher-order knowledge structures are the
prior TMS. very types of shared conceptualizations that help groups


collectively induce general principles underlying tasks in the experimenters explicitly assigned responsibility for
the domain (Laughlin 1999). learning in specific areas of expertise. Imposing a new
In sum, a prior TMS leverages prior learning, mak- division of cognitive labor on couples that had already
ing it more likely that members encode more abstract developed an implicit TMS structure seemed to impede
knowledge relevant to the domain and more likely that how much information they were able to learn and later
members recognize when the same general principles recall.
apply across different tasks. Therefore, we hypothesize An interesting laboratory study by Baumann (2001)
that, given experience on tasks in the same domain: suggests that the impact of a disruption to the TMS
structure may depend on the extent of that disrup-
Hypothesis 3. Groups with a prior TMS will be more
tion. Baumann found that when groups were constructed
likely to demonstrate abstract, generalized knowledge
to preserve expertise categories and the distribution of
about the underlying principles relevant to the domain expertise across task trials, groups whose membership
than will groups that have never developed a TMS. had changed after developing a TMS were able to quickly
learn which members possessed what expertise and con-
3. Interference in TMS Learning and struct a new TMS. Because the task as well as the divi-
Transfer sion of cognitive labor remained constant across trials,
Thus far, our arguments have assumed that group mem- members may have been able to apply some prior TMS
bers will have full access to the two components of a learning even though group membership had changed.
TMS—a TMS structure and a set of transactive pro- Together, the above studies suggest that significant
cesses. We argued that once a group has developed an disruptions to the TMS structure, defined as changes
efficient TMS structure and effective TMS processes, that affect location information and redefine the division
members are better able to learn and transfer task- of cognitive labor, are likely to affect members’ learn-
relevant information. Suppose instead that a group’s ing and, consequently, learning transfer across tasks. We
TMS structure is relatively inefficient, as might be the note that when the task has also changed, it is likely that
case when group members do not possess common loca- even minor disruptions to the TMS structure will affect
members’ ability to map prior knowledge. Therefore, we
tion information. In that case, TMS processes would also
hypothesize that:
be relatively inefficient. Without a shared understanding
of who is responsible for what, new information encoun- Hypothesis 4. Groups that experience a disruption
tered by the group might be encoded by more mem- to an established TMS structure will perform worse on a
bers than necessary, or might never be encoded (Wegner transfer task than will groups that have never developed
1986). Discovering which members possess what exper- a TMS.
tise and deciding on the appropriate allocation of new Disruptions to an existing TMS structure are also
information takes time, reducing the efficiency of TMS likely to interfere with members’ higher-order learning
encoding processes. Furthermore, until members under- about the task and task domain. Members are less apt
stand which members possess what expertise, they will to develop contextualized knowledge about how their
be less efficient at retrieving information and commu- own knowledge fits with other members’ task-relevant
nicating about task elements that had previously been knowledge, because members will no longer be certain
organized as shared higher-order information. Members what knowledge other members actually possess. Fur-
must again develop shared higher-order concepts before thermore, because disruptions prevent or delay access
they can efficiently retrieve and coordinate what mem- to lower-order information, integrations that produce
bers know. Changes to the TMS structure, if severe shared higher-order information will occur slowly, or not
enough, could also cause groups to abandon their habit- at all. Without contextualized knowledge at the individ-
ual routines and force members to learn new patterns of ual level, and without shared conceptual knowledge at
interaction (Gersick and Hackman 1990). Disruptions to the group level, members are unlikely to identify and
the TMS structure, then, should interfere with members’ recognize when tasks are functionally similar, and are
learning and learning transfer. unlikely to be able to abstract common principles under-
Indeed, TMS research examining TMS encoding and lying the tasks. Therefore, we predict that:
retrieval processes demonstrates that, when an existing
TMS structure is changed, a prior TMS does interfere Hypothesis 5. Groups that experience a disruption
with learning and reduces group performance. In a study to an established TMS structure will be less likely to
comparing the encoding and retrieval processes of inti- demonstrate abstract, generalized knowledge about the
mate couples with those of stranger couples, Wegner underlying principles relevant to the task domain than
et al. (1991) found that intimate couples (who had will groups that have never developed a TMS.
presumably already developed an implicit structure for We have argued that TMSs are learning systems that
learning and recalling information) performed worse produce transferable knowledge, help members recog-
than stranger couples on a knowledge recall test when nize the functional similarities and common principles


across tasks, and facilitate retrieval and mapping of prior which groups could develop a TMS. Second, the initial
knowledge across tasks. We further argued that, given and subsequent tasks had to be different from each other
additional task experience, groups with a TMS are more in terms of superficial features, and yet be functionally
likely to develop an abstract understanding of the under- similar, such that they had task elements in common and
lying principles of the task domain. If a TMS structure such that the strategies used to complete the learning
is significantly disrupted, however, having developed a task were appropriate to the other tasks. For prior learn-
TMS in the past is expected to reduce members’ learning ing to transfer, members would have to recognize the
transfer and hamper the development of abstract knowl- common features of the tasks and ignore the superficial
edge about the task domain. We test our hypotheses differences (Singley and Anderson 1989).
in an empirical study that is described next. Our study For the learning task we chose an off-the-shelf elec-
examines the key outcomes of our TMS-learning frame- tronics assembly kit—a telephone kit—that is compa-
work: (1) whether a TMS developed on one task facil- rable in complexity to electronics-oriented kits used in
itates learning transfer across tasks; (2) whether a prior past TMS research (e.g., Liang et al. 1995, Moreland and
TMS, combined with multiple task experiences, helps Myaskovsky 2000), so we were confident that partici-
groups develop abstract, generalized knowledge about pants would be able to develop TMSs on the task. The
the underlying principles relevant to the task domain; telephone kit was composed of 47 parts, including circuit
and (3) the conditions under which having developed a boards, wires, screws, and buttons. We chose another
TMS in the past hampers, rather than facilitates, learning off-the-shelf electronics assembly kit—a personal stereo
and transfer. tape player—for our transfer task. The personal stereo
kit was composed of 31 parts, including earphones,
4. Methods play/stop buttons, tape guides, circuit board, screws,
We tested our hypotheses by conducting a longitudi- wires, and battery connections. We used a third kit—
nal experiment in which three-person groups performed an electronic stapler—as the basis for testing whether
electronic assembly tasks. In a series of three sessions, groups with experience with the learning and transfer
each separated by one week, groups were trained on an tasks developed abstract, generalized knowledge about
assembly task (Week 1), performed that task (Week 2), the underlying principles relevant to the task domain.
and then a week later performed a different assembly The electronic stapler kit was composed of 45 parts,
task and a knowledge task (Week 3). The participants, including a circuit board, wires, buttons, a small motor,
tasks and procedures, design, manipulations, and mea- and screws.
sures are described next. To confirm that these three tasks differed superficially
but were indeed functionally similar, we analyzed the
4.1. Participants tasks using frameworks proposed in the literature (e.g.,
Participants were undergraduate students from a large McGrath 1984, Steiner 1972, Wageman 1995). The tasks
southwestern U.S. university who earned extra credit differ in terms of superficial features in two ways. First,
toward their course grades by taking part in the study. while the kits have many common parts (e.g., screws,
We began with 434 students randomly assigned to con- brackets, circuit boards, and wires), some parts differ
ditions in groups of three. Over the course of the three- across kits. For instance, the telephone assembly has no
week study, 47 participants were lost to attrition and motorized parts, while the personal stereo and stapler
87 were excused because a member of their group did have gears and belts that regulate operation. Second, the
not show up to one of the three sessions (if even a sin- tasks differ in terms of what Miller (1973, 1974) called
gle member was absent, the group to which that mem- goal image, or a mental picture of the task’s end state.
ber was assigned became unusable). Excused students Participants likely have a different goal image for each
received full credit for participating. Three hundred par- of the three products (telephone, personal stereo, and
ticipants in 100 groups completed the entire study. Attri- stapler) and are consequently likely to have preconcep-
tion did not differ across conditions, nor were there tualizations of the tasks that make them seem somewhat
any demographic differences among students who were dissimilar (Fleishman and Quaintance 1984).
excused, dropped out, or finished the experiment. The In spite of their surface differences, the three tasks
final sample averaged 21 years of age and was approx- are functionally similar in several ways. First, all three
imately 50% males and 50% females. Of the partici- tasks can be categorized as divisible rather than unitary
pants, 59% were Caucasian, 20% were Asian, 8% were (Steiner 1966, 1972), meaning that each task has the
Hispanic, 5% were African-American, and 8% did not potential to be accomplished through a genuine division
report their ethnicity. of labor. Second, all three tasks lend themselves to inter-
dependent rather than independent work by group mem-
4.2. Tasks and Materials bers (Wageman 1995). Indeed, when we reviewed pretest
We selected tasks for this study with two criteria in videotapes of groups completing the tasks, we observed
mind. First, the initial (learning) task had to be one on members working interdependently, rather than working


in isolation or relying on a single member to apply his full factorial be carried out. We chose this design for
or her expertise to accomplish the entire assembly. The three reasons, described next.
degree of interdependence needed to successfully com- First, to test the effects of a TMS on transfer and
plete the tasks requires the type of interaction that typi- learning, we had to create a TMS in some groups and
fies a TMS (Hollingshead 2001). not in others. Comparing these groups on the learning
Other functional similarities among the tasks can task would allow us to confirm the effects of Learn-
be assessed using McGrath’s (1984) task classifica- ing Cycle 1 (Hypothesis 1), and comparing these groups
tion scheme. McGrath organized tasks into six types on later tasks would allow us to test our predictions
along two dimensions, cooperative versus conflictual, about the extent to which a TMS does or does not facil-
and conceptual versus behavioral. All three of our tasks itate learning transfer (Hypotheses 2 and 4) and con-
correspond to the intersection of the cooperative and tribute to the development of abstract domain knowledge
behavioral categorizations, and map well onto the two (Hypotheses 3 and 5). We created a TMS with a training
tasks that McGrath associated with that intersection— manipulation described in Moreland et al. (1996, 1998).
planning and performance/psychomotor activities. We trained all members on the learning task in groups
of three, expecting that group training would help TMSs
Planning. Groups performing each of the three tasks
to develop (Moreland 1999), and then we “disabled”
might benefit from devising an action-oriented plan for
the TMSs of half of the trained groups by reassigning
completing the assembly of the electronics kit. Assem-
members to new groups before they performed the learn-
bly planning that applies to all three kits might include
ing task. Groups remaining intact after training would
formulating a rough theory of operation, defining what
have full access to their training TMS, while groups
suboperations comprise the whole theory of operation,
whose members were reassigned after training would
identifying the assembly actions required to achieve sub-
no longer have access to elements of the TMS struc-
operations, outlining the necessary sequence of actions,
ture and processes that were previously associated with
considering how to organize parts, and planning the
other members. This manipulation created two compari-
coordination of member actions and interactions.
son groups—those with a training TMS and those with-
Performance/Psychomotor Activities. All three kits out access to the TMS developed during training (for
have small parts that can be described as fasteners, but- simplicity, we refer to this comparison group as having
tons, circuit boards and wiring, moving parts, or station- “no prior TMS”).
ary parts. The assemblies require similar ordered actions, A second reason for our design choice is that we had
such as placing and fastening an array of smaller sta- to isolate the effects of the training TMS on learning
tionary parts onto larger parts, placing small moving and learning transfer across two subsequent tasks. This
parts onto larger parts so that they move and interact to meant that we had to control for the possibility that
perform their designed functions, placing and fastening groups might develop a useful TMS while performing
parts that secure the moving-parts assemblies, fastening one of the tasks, even if they had not developed a TMS
subassemblies to bases, and snapping and fastening cas- during training (Baumann 2001, Hollingshead 1998).
ings. All the kits involve assembly with the use of small To demonstrate that transfer and subsequent learning
screwdrivers and screws. effects were caused by the training TMS, and not by
All told, the three tasks have functional similarities task learning or a newly developed TMS, we would
that permit us to expect that expertise gained on one task have to control for the confounding effects of task and
will be applicable to the other tasks. At the same time, group experience. Task experience was controlled for by
the task content of the kits differs substantially enough having all groups perform the same tasks, in the same
to allow us to infer whether learning transferred across sequence. Group experience was controlled for by reas-
tasks. signing members to new groups before they performed a
subsequent task. Reassignment should render any TMS
4.3. Design and Manipulations that developed in a prior group less relevant to subse-
To determine whether a TMS that developed on the quent task performance (Moreland et al. 1996, 1998),
learning task influenced learning transfer and the subse- and keeping membership intact should provide a group
quent development of domain knowledge, we designed with the full advantages of its training TMS. Thus, we
an experiment with three tasks (learning task, trans- controlled for group experience on the telephone task by
fer task, knowledge task) performed in sequence. Each reassigning half of the members to new groups before
task was performed by two types of groups, created by they performed the stereo (transfer) task, and we con-
either reassigning members to new groups before they trolled for group experience on the stereo task by reas-
performed a task, or by keeping members in the same signing half of the members to new groups prior to
groups in which they completed the previous task, result- performing the stapler (knowledge) task. Reassignment
ing in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. We intended to do enabled us to isolate the effects of having developed
a series of planned comparisons, which required that the a prior TMS on learning transfer (Hypothesis 2) and


on the subsequent development of abstract knowledge participants were only allowed to watch and listen to the
(Hypothesis 3). demonstration. The experimenters then directed groups
Finally, our design had to allow us to test whether to their separate work areas and issued each group a
disruptions to an established TMS structure impeded telephone assembly kit on which to practice for approx-
learning transfer (Hypothesis 4) and the development of imately 30 minutes. Members were free to discuss the
abstract knowledge (Hypothesis 5). This requirement is task within their own groups and to call the trainer over
satisfied by our 2 × 2 × 2 design because the reassign- to their work area for private questions. At the end of
ment manipulation is itself a significant disruption to the practice time the experimenters dismissed the partic-
the established TMS structure. Reassigning members to ipants and reminded them to return one week later.
new groups effectively disrupts any preexisting cogni- The same participants returned one week later to per-
tive division of labor and makes members’ prior location form the learning task (telephone assembly) under timed
information less relevant for task processing. Reassign- conditions. At the start of this second experimental ses-
ment allows us to compare groups that have experienced sion, participants either remained in their training groups
a disruption to a prior TMS structure with those groups or were randomly reassigned to new groups in the man-
whose full TMS structure remained intact. Thus, our ner described earlier. The experimenters issued each
longitudinal 2 × 2 × 2 design: (1) produces a TMS in group an unassembled telephone kit identical to the one
some groups but not others, (2) controls for alterna- they had completed the week before and directed groups
tive influences on transfer and learning (i.e., by control- to complete the assembly to the best of their ability in a
ling for group and task experience) while isolating the maximum of 30 minutes. Upon finishing the group task,
effects of TMS learning, and (3) maintains or disrupts each participant completed a questionnaire with items
a group’s established TMS structure—all of which are about group cohesiveness and motivation (Liang et al.
necessary for testing our hypotheses about TMS learning 1995), items measuring the extent to which a training
and transfer. TMS had indeed developed (Lewis 2003), and a fill-
in-the-blank question asking members to describe each
4.4. Procedures member’s expertise. Participants were reminded to return
We conducted each of the three experimental sessions in one week later and were dismissed.
a large classroom. The room was equipped with tables In the first part of the third and final session, groups
spaced far enough apart that groups could not see other performed the transfer task (stereo assembly). Partic-
groups’ materials or hear their conversations. At the start ipants either remained in their learning-task group or
of the experiment, participants were told that the study were randomly assigned to new groups before starting
was being done to investigate how groups work together. the transfer task. The experimenters gave each group a
They were told that there would be three sessions run preassembled personal stereo kit and allowed them one
in three consecutive weeks. Participants were not told minute to examine the assembly and components. Par-
that some of them would be reassigned to new groups in ticipants were not allowed to disassemble the stereo kit
subsequent sessions because group members who expect or alter the preassembled kit in any way. This was the
turnover may decide not to rely on transactive memory. first opportunity that the participants had to examine
Groups were randomly assigned to an experimental con- the assembled personal stereo kit. The groups received
dition, and participants were randomly assigned to their no other training or instruction. After the one-minute
initial groups by blindly drawing a group number from examination period, the experimenters collected the pre-
a hat. In subsequent sessions, the member composition assembled kits, issued each group an unassembled per-
of groups in the reassignment conditions was also deter- sonal stereo kit, and instructed each group to assemble
mined by random assignment, constrained such that no the kit to the best of their ability in a maximum of
members were regrouped with people they had worked 30 minutes. Upon completing the transfer task, partic-
with before. ipants were given a questionnaire asking them to once
During the first session, groups received training on again describe each member’s expertise (the question-
the learning task (telephone assembly). First, partici- naire also included items about task difficulty and group
pants completed a short survey asking for demographic processes that were not analyzed for this study).
information and previous experience with electronics The second part of Session 3 was devoted to test-
kit assembly. A graduate assistant helping us with the ing the extent to which groups had developed a gen-
experiment then performed a 15–20 minute task demon- eralized understanding of the underlying principles of
stration in full view of all of the groups. The trainer the electronics kit assembly domain (abstract knowledge
used a script and a demonstration model to describe the test). To control for the possibility that groups devel-
step-by-step procedures for constructing the telephone oped a TMS while performing the transfer task, we once
assembly kit. The script was used to ensure that all par- again reassigned half of the participants to new groups
ticipants received identical training instructions. Talk- before asking groups to complete the knowledge test.
ing among participants and note taking was prohibited; The abstract knowledge test consisted of examining, but


not assembling, another electronics kit (electronic sta- problem. Our measure is similar to explanation-based
pler). Experimenters issued each group an assembled measures used in past learning-transfer research to test
electronic stapler and a survey that asked the group to for the development of abstract knowledge (e.g., Gentner
articulate a strategy for assembling the stapler. To com- et al. 2003). Groups that recognize the ways in which
plete this task well, participants would have to abstract the learning and transfer tasks are functionally simi-
the underlying principles common to both of the prior lar should be better able to apply abstract principles of
two tasks and recognize the general task strategies that the task domain to decompose the new problem and
apply to all three tasks. After the surveys were com- plan out a solution for assembling the stapler (Singley
pleted, experimenters thanked the participants and then and Anderson 1989). Abstract knowledge scores were
dismissed them. To avoid the possibility that participants obtained by rating a group’s response to the question
who had recently completed the experiment would dis- “What sort of strategy would your group develop and
cuss it with classmates who had not yet completed the utilize if you wanted to conduct the assembly of this
three-session series, we did not immediately debrief par- kit efficiently and accurately? (How would you go about
ticipants about the study hypotheses. Instead, we invited doing it?).” Two of the coauthors, blind to the group’s
participants to debriefing sessions held at the end of the experimental condition, rated each group’s written strat-
semester. A small percentage of the participants (less egy description. We used a five-point scale to rate the
than 5%) ultimately chose to attend these sessions.2 quality of each group’s strategy description. The scale
was anchored at 1 = trivial and 5 = integrative, where
4.5. Measures “trivial” was interpreted as relating to strategy descrip-
tions that entailed the superficial, surface elements of
Learning-Task Performance. Performance on the the task—elements that would differ between the sta-
learning task (telephone assembly) was measured by pler task and the other two tasks; and “integrative” was
assembly accuracy—the number of assembly opera- interpreted as relating to strategy descriptions that tran-
tions done correctly. Similar accuracy-based measures scended the superficial elements and corresponded to
of performance have been used in prior TMS research underlying principles relevant to how such problems can
(e.g., Liang et al. 1995, Moreland and Myaskovsky be solved. The two raters independently rated the same
2000). Distinct operations were defined according to 20 groups and, after determining that interrater reliability
steps described in printed instructions included with was high (ICC(2) = 0 98), split up the remaining groups
the assembly kit. We pretested the telephone assembly and rated them. The average score of the raters was used
using the printed instructions and confirmed 38 distinct for the first 20 groups. A higher strategy-quality score
operations in the telephone task. A trained experi- indicates a greater degree of abstract knowledge than
menter examined each group’s completed telephone and does a lower score.
counted misplaced or misconnected components accord- Control Variables. We controlled for prior expertise
ing to these instructions. We deducted one point from with electronics or electronics kits, anticipating that
a group’s performance score for each inaccurate opera- members who had experience on tasks similar to the
tion, such that higher scores indicate higher learning-task tasks we used in our study would be able to achieve
performance. higher performance. Prior expertise was measured with
two items that appeared on the pretraining survey:
Learning Transfer Transfer-Task Performance . The
“Based on past experience, I would rate my overall
extent to which groups transferred learning across tasks
knowledge level of electronics as” and “Based on past
was measured in terms of transfer-task performance—
experience, I would rate my skill level with electron-
the number of assembly operations done correctly for
ics kit assembly as.” Each of those items had a five-
the personal stereo assembly kit. Pretests using the point response format, anchored at 1 = beginner and 5 =
kit’s printed instructions indicated that there are 34 dis- expert. The interitem correlations r = 0 69 justified
tinct operations in the personal stereo task. Points were summing the item scores to form a composite. Group
deducted from a group’s score for each inaccurate oper- scores were computed as the sum of member compos-
ation, such that higher scores indicate higher learning ite scores in each group, in each condition. Because
transfer to the stereo task. each member’s prior expertise is independent of other
Abstract Knowledge. We measured the extent to members’ prior expertise, there was no need to check
which groups developed an abstract, generalized under- for within-group agreement before summing members’
standing of the underlying principles common to the scores. A higher group score indicates a greater level of
tasks by asking groups to articulate a strategy for assem- prior expertise in the group than does a lower score.
bling a third electronics kit (electronic stapler), a task in
the same domain as the learning and transfer tasks. The 5. Results
abstract knowledge measure takes into account knowl- We conducted all hypotheses tests at the group level
edge about the task and how the group might solve the using ANOVA and planned contrasts. Initial checks


showed that group gender composition (computed as groups had significantly higher mean scores on the TMS
percent of female members) was significantly negatively scale, compared with groups composed of reassigned
related to prior expertise for each of the tasks and signif- members (M = 55 47 versus M = 53 85), F 1 96 =
icantly negatively related to transfer-task performance. 4 06, p < 0 05. We also measured task recall in half of
Therefore, we controlled for gender composition in addi- the sample (34 intact groups, and 32 reassigned groups);
tion to controlling for prior expertise in all analyses. recall should be higher in groups with a TMS. The
number of task steps recalled was significantly higher
5.1. Learning-Transfer Check in intact groups, compared with reassigned groups
Singley and Anderson (1989) recommend checking that (M = 21 53 versus M = 14 83), F 1 62 = 33 03, p <
learning transfer is even possible before testing hypothe- 0 001. The bivariate correlation between TMS and recall
ses about the extent of learning transfer between tasks. N = 66 is 0.28, p < 0 05. These results suggest that
Their recommended method compares performance for keeping groups intact gave groups full access to the TMS
groups that complete both learning and transfer tasks developed during training, while reassigning groups dis-
with the performance of groups that only complete a abled any TMS that had developed. Thus, our manip-
transfer task. If the performance of the trained groups ulation for creating a TMS in some groups and not in
is higher than that of the untrained groups, transfer others was successful.
has occurred from the learning to the transfer task.
We tested for learning transfer using a holdout sam- 5.3. Hypothesis Tests
ple from the same population as our study participants. Figure 2 depicts the experimental design conditions and
A total of 93 students in 31 groups comprised the hold- the results from ANOVAs and planned contrasts for all
out sample, 16 of whom were trained on the learning hypothesis tests. Hypothesis 1 predicted that relative to
task and performed the transfer (stereo) task, and 15 of groups with no prior TMS, groups with a TMS would
whom received no training before performing the trans- demonstrate higher performance on the learning task.
fer task. The difference between performance means for Performance on the telephone assembly task was indeed
the transfer task was significant, F 1 29 = 20 31, p < higher in groups with full access to their training TMS,
0 01 (M = 25 25 for trained groups versus M = 16 66 compared with groups whose training TMS had been
for untrained groups). Higher transfer-task performance disabled (M = 32 22 versus M = 31 19), and this dif-
for groups that received training on the learning task ference is significant, F 1 96 = 3 80, p < 0 05. Thus,
relative to those that did not is evidence that transfer Hypothesis 1 is supported.
occurred between the learning task and the transfer task. Hypotheses 2 and 4 were tested together, using
ANOVA and two planned contrasts. We predicted that
5.2. Manipulation Check groups that had developed and utilized a TMS on a
We created a TMS in some groups and not others by previous task would perform better on a transfer task
keeping half of the participants in their training groups than groups with no prior TMS (Hypothesis 2), and that
and by reassigning the other half of the participants to groups that experienced a disruption to an established
new groups. We expected that groups remaining intact TMS structure would perform worse on the transfer task
after training would have full access to their TMS, and than groups that had never developed a TMS (Hypoth-
therefore higher TMS scores, than would groups whose esis 4). ANOVA results show no significant differences
members had been reassigned. We measured TMSs with among any of the performance means, F 1 94 = 0 35,
a 15-item scale developed by Lewis (2003) and com- p = 0 55, providing no support for Hypotheses 2 and 4.
puted a TMS composite score for each member by sum- We discuss these findings in more detail below.
ming scores on the 15 items = 0 83 . To confirm that Hypotheses 3 and 5 were tested together. We pre-
members’ scores could be aggregated to the group level, dicted that experience with two tasks would be more
we evaluated the rwg statistic (George 1990), which mea- likely to produce an abstract, generalized understand-
sures the degree to which individual ratings within a ing of the task domain when a group had a prior TMS
group are interchangeable. Mean rwg values of 0.70 or (Hypothesis 3). If, however, a group experienced a dis-
greater provide evidence of acceptable agreement among ruption to an established TMS structure, a prior TMS
member responses on a scale (George 1990). The aver- was expected to interfere with learning and the develop-
age rwg on the TMS scale for the learning task was 0.97, ment of abstract knowledge (Hypothesis 5). An ANOVA
with 100% of the rwg values above 0.70. These results with planned contrasts shows that both Hypotheses 3
indicate that group member responses on the TMS scale and 5 are supported, F 1 89 = 5 14, p < 0 05. Groups
were quite homogeneous and that aggregating mem- with a training TMS that remained intact demonstrated
bers’ scores to the group level of analysis is statistically a better understanding of the underlying principles and
justified. strategies relevant to the task domain, compared with
A one-way ANOVA, with gender composition and groups that had never developed a TMS (abstract knowl-
prior expertise entered as covariates, shows that intact edge score M = 3 41 versus M = 2 56), t 89 = 2 13,


Figure 2 Experimental Design and ANOVA Results

Training Learning task (telephone) Transfer task (stereo): Knowledge task (stapler)
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3, Part 1 Week 3, Part 2

I
I Maintain TMS 3.41H3 (0.28)
Maintain TMS 22.73H2 (1.00)
R 3.28 (0.32)
(I) Intact
Maintain TMS 32.22H1 (0.37) I
3.33 (0.25)
R 23.28H4 (1.06)
Disrupt TMS R 1.56H5 (0.31)
Disrupt TMS
N = 100 groups
I
I 3.72 (0.36)
23.33 (1.07)
R 3.30 (0.29)
(R) Reassigned 31.19H1 (0.37)
Disrupt TMS I
2.55 (0.41)
R 22.65H2,H4 (0.99)
Disrupt TMS R 2.56H3,H5 (0.30)
Disrupt TMS

Sample mean/s.d. 31.70/2.66 22.97/5.05 3.00/1.20

Notes. Mean scores are shown for each condition. Standard errors are in parentheses. H1 comparison is significant, F 1 96 = 3 80,
p < 0 05. H2 and H4 comparisons are not significant, F 1 94 = 0 35, p = 0 55. H3 and H5 comparisons are significant, F 1 89 = 5 14,
p < 0 05, t 89 = 2 13, p < 0 05, and t 89 = −2 31, p < 0 01.

p < 0 05, supporting Hypothesis 3. Groups with a train- expertise changed for the transfer task. Given these find-
ing TMS that later experienced a disruption to their ings, we decided to create a variable that measures
existing TMS structure had significantly lower abstract the extent to which perceived expertise remained stable
knowledge scores than did groups that had never devel- across tasks and to reexamine Hypotheses 2 and 4, tak-
oped a TMS M = 1 56 versus M = 2 56), t 89 = ing this new variable into account.
−2 31, p < 0 01. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported.
Our results show that having developed a TMS not 5.4. Expertise Stability Analysis
only affects performance on the task for which the Members’ consistent recognition of and agreement about
TMS first developed, but also affects the development of location information in both tasks is evidence that
abstract knowledge about the task domain, given experi- members did indeed maintain specializations across
ence with an additional task. Abstract knowledge facili- the different task contexts. In our surveys, we had
tates mapping of the task principles to other similar tasks asked participants to identify which members had what
beyond those the group has already completed (Reeves expertise following the completion of the learning and
and Weisberg 1994), suggesting that having developed a transfer tasks. Two of the coauthors, blind to the
TMS can indeed facilitate learning and learning transfer. conditions, independently coded individual responses
We also found evidence consistent with our prediction into nine expertise categories: Mechanical/electrical,
that a severe disruption to the TMS structure impedes general assembly, small-parts assembly, large-parts
abstract, conceptual learning about the task domain. assembly, assembly strategy, recall, general assistance,
We did not find evidence, however, of any learning- motivation, and parts management. Raters indepen-
transfer effects after groups had experience with only dently categorized each member’s response (Cohen’s
one task (Hypotheses 2 and 4). Additional examination kappa = 0 90, p < 0 01), discussed cases where there
of the groups’ TMS structures revealed some explana- was disagreement, and came to a consensus about the
tions for these findings. When we examined elements appropriate expertise categorization. The consensus cat-
of the TMS structures using members’ statements about egorizations were used as the basis for the expertise sta-
“who is expert at what” for each task, we found that bility scores.
in more than 20% of the reassigned groups, members’ A measure of expertise stability was derived from the
perceived expertise remained stable across tasks, while number of times members agreed about each member’s
in nearly half of the intact groups, members’ perceived expertise, both within and between tasks. For example,

Lewis & al 2005

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Lewis & al 2005

Ähnlich wie Lewis & al 2005 (20)

Mehr von Ikram KASSOU

Mehr von Ikram KASSOU (16)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Lewis & al 2005