Deep and surface learning approaches

There is much written about deep and surface learning approaches (see for example Biggs, 1989; 2003; Cohen et al, 1992; Gibbs, 1992; 1983; Ramsden, 1987; 1988; 1992) who cite ways to foster deep learning approaches as opposed to the development of surface approaches by learners. Evidence from Biggs‘ (2003) work shows ways to enable students to go beyond surface learning. According to Gibbs (1983), Entwistle (1988) and Ramsden (1988) getting the learning design ‗right‘ is crucial to promote deep approaches. This view was formed as a result of an investigation into students‘ strategies towards learning. Additionally, Prosser (1987) studied the relationship between cognitive structures and learning strategies. This work found that students adopt both surface and deep approaches to learning.

A surface approach to learning is based on recall of facts. According to Biggs (2003) this may be sufficient, for example, in tests of factual recall. However, it is argued that using this surface approach, following the test, learning tends to be forgotten after a short time. Earlier research undertaken by Marton and Säljö (1976; 1984) found that the student reduces what is being learnt to the status of unconnected facts to be memorised. It is evident the learning task is to reproduce the subject matter later for example, in the

exam. In contrast, a deep approach (Biggs, 1989; 2003) necessitates a deep understanding of facts presented by the teacher. According to Biggs (2003) inappropriate course design will lead to the adoption of a surface approach by the learner. It is apparent from the 3P model as shown in Figure 2.2 that teachers through, for example, course design, teaching methods and assessment are responsible for the approaches adopted by learners, particularly by the way in which learning activities are set and the way in which the learning environment is constructively aligned (Biggs, 2003).

Biggs (2003) goes on to argue that the interest of a teacher in the subject matter and the demonstration of this interest to learners helps to encourage learners to adapt deeper, more meaningful approaches to learning. On the other hand a surface approach to learning is achieved through the teacher showing little interest in the subject matter, setting trivial learning activities that require recall of facts and may occur through inadequate learner feedback by the teacher. The evidence from the literature of Biggs (1989; 2003), Cohen et al (1992), Gibbs (1992), and Ramsden (1987) shows that activities designed by the teacher help in promoting a deep approach to learning. This has been shown (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996) to result in the student making more sense of what is to be learnt and gaining more of an understanding of ideas and concepts. This involves thinking, seeking integration between components and between tasks, and playing with ideas. These are supported by teachers anchoring learning practice in situated (Lave and Wenger, 1991) (see section2.1.5) and authentic ‗real‘ world learning contexts (Dewey, 1916; Cohen and Ellis 2002; Ring and Mathieux,

2002; Gupta 2004) (see section 2.1.2) that are meaningful, plausible and relevant to practice (Donovan et al, 1999; Canole 2002; Schuell 1992; Biggs, 1999; 2003).

Biggs (1990) suggests that a surface approach, almost without exception, leads to a quantitative outcome of unstructured detail and a deep approach to an appropriately structured learning outcome.

As shown in Figure 2.2, to help learners to foster a deep approach there appears to be a need for teachers to consider student characteristics and student perceptions of what constitutes ‗good‘ teaching; this may be judged, for example on how clearly the teacher sets learning goals and whether feedback on learning helps to move learners forward in their understanding of concepts. It is suggested by Biggs (2003) that these considerations need to be planned for in the course design, methods and assessment to support learning as shown in Figure 2.2. In this way once learning activities set by the teacher stimulate learners in active engagement, other learners will help to expand knowledge, share support and guide each other to participate in their learning when working collaboratively in social, group and community contexts (Lewin, 1951; Wenger, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978, Dillengbourgh, 1999). To encourage students to adopt a deep approach to learning Biggs (1989) describes four key elements:

1. Motivational context - deep learning is more likely when students‘ motivation is intrinsic and when the student experiences a need to know something.

2. Learner activity - which means the students need to be active rather than passive. Deep learning is associated with doing. The learning activity needs to be planned, reflected upon and processed and related to abstract conceptions.

3. Interaction with others - it is often easier to negotiate meaning and to manipulate ideas with others than alone.

4. A well-structured knowledge base - without existing concepts, it is impossible to make sense of new concepts. The subject matter being learnt must be well structured and integrated and related to other knowledge rather than having been learnt in isolation.

Biggs (2003) specifies the need to make clear to learners the teacher‘s expectations of learners to support learning. This relates to and supports Chickering and Gamson (1987) who offer teachers the seven principles of ‗good teaching practice‘ to support teachers as follows:

1. Encourages contact between learners and faculty 2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among learners 3. Uses active learning teaching

4. Gives prompt feedback 5. Emphasises time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

These principles are offered by Chickering and Gamson (1987) as good practice for teachers to support learners.

In this thesis contact between teacher and learner and between learners is promoted. Additionally, reciprocity, and co-operation between learners and with the tutor is encouraged through the assessment design in Chapter 3. In the assessment design, learning activities are designed to promote active learning between learners (Dillengbourgh, 1999; Lewin, 1951; Brown, 1998; Thorley and Gregory, 1994) and with the learning environment (Wenger, 1998). Learners are encouraged to communicate their expectations of their collaborative working practices with themselves and other group members. These culminate into a group commitment. Learners are expected to show evidence of meeting this commitment. This includes respecting the diversity within and across groups and the cohort of learners.

Laurillard (2001) supports such dialogue in the conversational framework although this work views the teacher as mentor and a dialogue between teacher and learner. A dialogue between learners is supported by (Wenger, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978) where learners are participants in the learning process (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott and Synder, 2002). The next section discusses blended learning and computer supported learning to bring clarity to the role of the technology and the key research theme technology to address the research question.