|
There are two interpretations of ‘approaches to learning’.
It can refer to the process adopted prior to the outcome of learning
as originally proposed by Marton and Saljo (1976), or it can refer
to predispositions to adopt particular processes, which is what
is meant when students are asked by questionnaires how they usually
go about learning (Biggs, 1987). In either meaning, an approach
to learning has two components: how you approach a task (strategy),
which depends on why you want to approach it in the first place
(motive). There are three common approaches to learning: surface,
deep and achieving.
Surface Approach
The motive here is extrinsic; it is to carry out the task because
of either positively or negatively reinforcing consequences. The
student is willing to engage the task and pass minimally either
because life will be even more unpleasant if he does not, or because
he wishes to gain a paper qualification with minimal trouble or
effort. A typical surface strategy is rote learning (c.f. Issue
No. 16: ‘From No Learning to Meaningful Learning’ of
this series). Surface-motivated students focus on what appear to
be the most important topics (as defined by examinations) and reproduce
them. Because of this focus, they do not see interconnections between
elements, or the meanings and implications of what is learned.
Deep Approach
The deep motive is based on intrinsic motivation or curiosity.
In the deep approach, there is a personal commitment to learning,
which means that the student relates the content to personally meaningful
contexts or to existing prior knowledge, depending on the subject
concerned. Deep processing involves processes of a higher cognitive
level than rote learning: searching for analogies, relating to previous
knowledge, theorising about what is learned, and deriving extensions
and exceptions (c.f. Issue No. 14: ‘Students are Not Tape
Recorders’ of this series).
Achieving Approach
Whereas the deep motive is focused on the process, the achieving
motive is like the surface approach in that it is focused on the
product; in this case, the ego trip that comes from obtaining high
grades and winning prizes. The general strategy is thus to maximise
the chances of obtaining high marks. While this (hopefully) involves
optimal engagement in the task (like the deep strategy), such engagement
is the means, not the end (unlike the deep strategy); the nature
of the engagement really depends on what earns the most marks.
While at any given time surface and deep approaches are mutually
exclusive, an achieving approach may be linked to either. Surface-achievers,
for instance, systematically learn selected details by rote to obtain
high grades. Deep-achievers, who often are the better students,
are organised and they plan their search both for meaning and for
high marks.
There are two main influences on the student’s development
of a certain learning approach: personal factors and the teaching
context. On the personal side, some factors in the student’s
background or personality seem to be associated with a surface approach
(Biggs, 1989) and others with a deep approach (Biggs, 1987). On
the teaching side, time pressures, examination stress, and using
test items that emphasise low level cognitive outcomes encourage
a surface approach (Ramseden, 1985). On the other hand, learner
activity, student-student interaction, and interactive teaching,
particularly problem-based teaching, encourage a deep approach (Biggs
and Telfer, 1987).
Further Reading
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches
to Learning and Studying. Victoria: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1989). ‘Approaches to Learning
in Two Cultures’. In Bickley, V. (Ed.). Teaching
and Learning Styles Within and Across Cultures: Implications for
Language Pedagogy. Hong Kong: Education Department,
Institute of Language in Education. 421–436.
Biggs, J.B. & Telfer, R. (1987). The
Process of Learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall
of Australia.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). ‘On Qualitative
Differences in Learning-I: Outcome and Process’. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Ramsden, P. (1985). ‘Student Learning Research:
Retrospect and Prospect’. Higher Education Research
and Development, 5(1), 51–70.
|
