Inert Knowledge: Analyses and Remedies

Alexander Renkl, Heinz Mandl, and Hans Gruber

University of Munich

Knowledge, although seemingly available, is often not used for problem solving. That means
it remains "inert." Three types of explanations exist for this phenomenon. Metaprocess
explanations assume that the relevant knowledge is available, but it is not used because of
disturbed access processes (e.g., lacking metacognitive control). Structure deficit explanations
suppose that the deficit is rooted in the structure of the knowledge itself (i.e., the knowledge is
not available in a form that allows for its application). In situatedness explanations, the
traditional concepts of knowledge and transfer are questioned. One basic assumption of this
perspective is that knowledge is fundamentally situated (i.e., context-bound). In the last decade,
instructional models have been developed that try to remedy the inert knowledge problem and
take into account important aspects that have been raised by the different explanations.

It is a common phenomenon that knowledge learned in in-
structional settings, such as schools, universities, or courses
in vocational education, is not used outside the corresponding
context ( Bransford, Goldman, & Vye, 1991; Mandl, Gruber, & Renkl, 1994, 1996; Renkl, Gruber, Mandl, & Hinkofer,
1994; Resnick, 1987; Schank, Fano, Bell, & Jona, 1994). The
lack of knowledge transfer from in-school contexts to out-of-
school contexts seriously questions the usefulness of tradi-
tional forms of teaching. Certainly, the primary purpose of
any form of instruction should not be to make the learners able
to answers questions in exams, but to cope more successfully
with problems of everyday or professional life. Whitehead ( 1929 ) labeled knowledge as "inert" when its use is more or
less confined to instructional contexts.

In order to attack the inert knowledge problem effectively,
analyses of the underlying causes are necessary. On the basis
of the identified roots of insufficient transfer, instruction that
allows learners to construct useful and broadly applicable
knowledge can be designed. Explanations of the nonapplica-
tion of knowledge found in the psychological and educational
literature can be divided into three categories: metaprocess,
structure deficit, and situatedness explanations. Metaprocess
explanations assume that the relevant knowledge is available,
but it is not used because of disturbed access processes (e.g.,
lacking metacognitive control or low self-efficacy expecta-
tions). Structure deficit explanations suppose that the deficit
is rooted in the structure of the knowledge itself (i.e., the
knowledge is not available in a form that allows for its
application). In situatedness explanations, the traditional con-
cepts of knowledge and transfer are questioned. One basic
assumption of this perspective is that knowledge is fundamen-
tally situated and, therefore, context-bound. These three types
of explanations are discussed in the subsequent sections. Then
instructional models that seem suited to cope with the inert
knowledge problem are presented. Finally, fruitful questions
for further research are proposed.

Typical metaprocess explanations stem from research on
metacognition and on the influence of noncognitive factors
on learning (e.g., motivation, epistemological beliefs). Renkl ( 1996 ) identified the following variants of metaprocess ex-
planations: metacognitive explanations, motivational expla-
nations, volitional explanations, cost-benefit explanations,
and explanations that stress the significance of epistemologi-
cal beliefs. We concentrate on two important variants: meta-
cognitive and motivational explanations.

Within metacognitive explanations, it is assumed that it is
not sufficient for a person to have some strategy knowledge
in order to be a strategic learner. Paris, Lipson, and Wixson
( 1983 ) argued that conditional knowledge is necessary for
effective metacognitive control of knowledge application
processes (cf. Alexander & Judy, 1988; Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991). Conditional knowledge comprises the knowl-
edge of "when" and "why" to access certain facts or strategies.
Paris and colleagues (e.g., Paris & Jacobs, 1984) support this
assumption by showing significant associations between
awareness of the usefulness of strategies and text comprehen-

-115-