Approaches to learning

Ramsden (2003) describes an approach to learning as a “relation between the student and the learning he or she is doing”. The term ‘learning approach’ refers to the students’ intentions when facing a learning situation and the way they engage their learning tasks or assignments (Watkins, 2001). It is evident that approaches to learning are heavily influenced by assessment procedures, dependency on teachers, time available and the quality of teaching (Nagel, 2005).

However, several studies suggest a connection between students’ approaches to learning and their learning outcomes (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Ramsden, 2003). Research has also been conducted into the relationship between best practices in teaching by teachers and best practices in learning by students. Results from such research are varied. For instance, some research indicates that students can adopt different approaches to learning, defined classically as deep, surface (Marton & Säljö, 1976) and strategic approaches (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). There are other examples where research has shown relations between students’ deeper approaches to learning and higher quality learning outcomes (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999).

In addition, a wide variety of individual learning styles and approaches has been identified and it would not be safe to conclude that any single approach would meet the needs of an entire group of students (Wishart, 2005). Other findings indicate that students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes towards teaching and learning and different responses to specific classroom environments and instructional practice (Felder & Brent, 2005). Interestingly, the broad distinction between an orientation towards comprehending the meaning

56

of learning materials (deep approach) and orientation towards merely reproducing those materials (surface approach) seems to be a universal feature of all systems of higher education (Richardson, 1994). In general, these two approaches to learning are predominant in education literature (Cano, 2005; Chin & Brown, 2000; Marton & Säljö, 1997; Trigwell et al., 1999).

Students who learn by rote or a surface approach are often unable to construct a holistic understanding of what they are learning. Such approaches may allow them to pass examinations, but are mainly about “quantity without quality” (Ramsden, 2003:117). The intention is to cope with the course requirements. This involves, for example, treating the course material as unrelated pieces of knowledge, carrying out procedures routinely, finding it difficult to make sense of new material, seeing little value in courses and tasks, studying without considering the purpose or strategy, feeling undue pressure and worrying about the work and the syllabus requirements (Almeida, Teixeira-Dias, Martinho & Balasooriya, 2011; Lovatt, Finlayson & James, 2007).

In contrast, deep learning approaches integrate facts into a holistic learning of concepts. Students with the ability to use deep approaches may use surface approaches when the task demands it, such as learning a large amount of material quickly for an examination, but without finding such tasks satisfying (Ramsden, 2003). Thus, good performance in examinations may be the result of either a surface approach or a deep learning approach, raising important concerns about the ability of examinations to identify or result in effective learning (Hazel, Prosser & Trigwell, 2002). A deep approach depends on the teacher providing a suitable learning context and the students taking more responsibility for their own learning strategies (Bolhuis, 1996; Entwistle, 1987:101; Taylor, 1995).

Students who adopt a strategic learning approach relate ideas to previous knowledge, look for patterns and underlying principles, and use evidence and relate it to conclusions. They examine logic and arguments cautiously and are critically aware of the understanding developed while becoming actively interested in the studied content (Almeida et al., 2011). The students’ study behaviours are heavily moderated by the requirements of assessment tasks, but are generally highly structured and efficient (Gordon & Debus, 2002). Where feasible, it seems to be more advantageous to allow students to choose styles of learning which suit them and to assist students in recognising their own preferred learning styles (Entwistle, 1987:98).

57

Personal development also plays a role in the learning process and involves those attitudes, skills, and values that enable one to understand and reflect on one’s thoughts and feelings; to recognise and appreciate the differences between one-self and others; to manage one’s personal affairs successfully; to care for those less fortunate; to relate meaningfully with others through friendships, marriage, and civic and political entities; to determine personally and socially acceptable responses in various situations; and to be economically self-sufficient. These qualities are usually associated with satisfaction, physical and psychological well-being, and balanced, productive life of work and leisure (Kuh et al., 2005; Kuh, Krehbiel & MacKay, 1981).

Gow and Kember (cited in Fourie, 2003:123) state that the quality of teaching and the attitude of teachers influence students in their approach to learning. Nevertheless, most South African researchers have concentrated on students’ approaches to learning in a broad content domain, such as science. Given the nature of different domains in the field of science, such as physics, chemistry and biology (Tsai, 2006) and based on previous research results, this study planned to focus partially on students’ approaches to learning in chemistry.

3.2.3.1 Identifying students’ learning approaches

Cano (2005) revealed that approaches to learning are a significant factor in predicting students’ academic achievement. Tools used to identify students’ learning approaches and strategies are thus important in order to determine how to approach teaching chemistry.

One such tool is the ‘Learning-to-learn’ programme in first-year Chemistry which is a programme used at one Australian university (Zeegers & Martin, 2001). The programme seeks to address the problem of high student attrition and failure in first-year introductory chemistry through the introduction of a student-focused learning-to-learn programme presented in context and which uses authentic course material. The programme focuses on developing students’ understanding of the learning process and their own learning, both in general educational terms and in chemistry in particular. The students’ approaches to learning in this programme are evaluated and monitored by the use of Biggs’s study process questionnaire.

The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987) was developed from the earlier 10-scale Study Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) (Biggs, 1987), conceived within an information processing framework (Biggs, 1976) in the late 1970s. Students’ approaches to learning are

58

conceived as forming part of the total system in which an educational event is located as schematised in the Presage-Process-Product (3P) model (see Figure 3.1) (Biggs, 1993). In the 3P model, student factors, teaching context, on-task approaches to learning, and the learning outcomes, mutually interact, forming a dynamic system.

Figure 3.1: The 3P model of teaching and learning (Source: Biggs et al., 2001)

Biggs et al. (2001) explain that presage factors refer to what exists prior to engagement that affects learning. On the student side, such factors are prior knowledge, ability, and their preferred approaches to learning; and on the side of the teaching context, the nature of the content being taught, methods of teaching as assessment, the institutional climate and procedures. These factors interact to determine the on-going approach to a practical task, which in turn determines the outcome. However, as the reversible arrows in Figure 3.1 show, each such factor affects every other factor. For instance, the student-preferred approach will adjust to the particular context and course being taught as well as to the success or otherwise of the outcome. The heart of the teaching and learning system is at the process level, where the learning-related activity produces or fails to produce the desired outcomes.

The SPQ constitutes a 42-item questionnaire that provides feedback on the learning approaches in the three domains, namely the surface, deep, and strategic domains, which are further broken

59

down into motives and strategies, which encompass surface motive, surface strategy, deep motive, deep strategy, strategic motive, and strategic strategy (Biggs, 1985). Surface motives are extrinsic, such as fear of failing, and surface strategies include reproductive or rote learning and ‘minimalistic’ learning – learning that is just enough to meet the demands of the course. Such an approach often leads to poor academic performance. Deep approaches are about seeking to understand and relate understanding to other subjects and develop personal meaning for subject material. However, a deep learner may sometimes wander off track and not follow the course syllabus and outlines. Academic performance, especially in a more structured system, may also be adversely affected. A strategic approach is about maximising performance while optimising efforts to achieve it. These are strategic learners who may use surface or deep approaches – whichever can help them to get high marks (Biggs et al., 2001).