Deep versus surface learning

Other commonly used metaphors for learning that link to learning as acquisition are deep and surface approaches to learning. In the 1970s, Marton and Säljö (1976) developed this influential theory of deep and surface approaches to learning, in which they concluded that the learner may either learn for understanding (a deep approach) or learning to memorise facts (a surface approach). Much of the debate that followed in the literature was underpinned by the question of whether the student’s approach to learning is fixed or variable and whether this dualism in learning approaches actually exists (Beattie, Collins and McInnes 1997) Beattie, Collins and McInnes (1997 p.1) also argue that it may be overly simplistic to assume that a deep approach to learning is ‘universally

desirable’ and that it may be appropriate, ‘given the nature of the knowledge to be acquired, to adopt a surface approach’.

Haggis (2003 p.90), also presents a critique of the concept of deep and surface learning exploring ‘some of the relatively unexamined

46

She argues that there are numerous paradoxes in applying the model and a questionable ‘elite set of assumptions about student purposes and

motivation’ (p.97) and that it ‘removes the individual learner from the richness and complexity of his/her multiple contexts’ (p.98). All of which,

in Haggis’s view, undermine the usefulness of this approach. She argues for a complementary alternative ‘academic literacies’ approach. This will be revisited in Chapter 2.2.1.3 below.

The metaphors of deep and surface approach to learning underpin Aggarwal and Bates’ (2000) research into pharmacy students’ approach to study and to HE and attempted to relate this to their learning in professional life by using Entwistle and Ramsden’s (1983 cited in Aggarwal and Bates 2000) Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (identifying deep and surface learning orientation) alongside semi- structured interviews to investigate the interaction of undergraduate education with their life-long learning attributes. All students in the School of Pharmacy under study complete the ASI in final year and 17 participants from three cohorts were selected; one cohort representing a ‘pre-reform, orthodox’ curriculum who had been in practice for three years, one to represent the final cohort from the ‘pre-reform’ curriculum (currently in their pre-registration year) and finally the final year at the time of the research (the first cohort of a revised curriculum). Students were interviewed using a semi-structured format to investigate life-long learning attributes and these were compared to their ASI score. The authors found it difficult to correlate deep and surface factors in the three cohorts and found that both approaches may occur together in the

47

same student arguing that students appear to ‘be able to use multiple

approaches at will, depending on the demands placed on them’ (Aggarwal

and Bates 2000 p.48). They also suggest that the multi-faceted nature of learning is not adequately described in the ASI, as indicated by the ASI authors’ later work (Entwistle and Tait 1990). Aggarwal and Bates’ (2000) findings imply that the deep and surface metaphors of learning may not be helpful and may be overly simplistic in exploring how pharmacy students learn.

The qualitative data in Aggarwal and Bates’ (2000) study yields some interesting findings. Although collected in a cross-sectional manner meaning detailed comparison between cohorts may not be valid, the authors conclude that:

approach to studying is a reaction to the environment, the

teaching, subject relevance and interest attributed to the learning task by students and modulated by the students’ perceptions of all these influences (Aggarwal and Bates 2000 p.51).

They also argue that fostering a deep approach may not be necessary in ensuring that learning is appropriate. This concurs with Beattie, Collins and McInnes's (1997) critique of deep and surface approaches and with other researchers’ work (Tait, Entwistle and McCune 1998) which extends Marton and Säljö’s (1976) theory indicating that students are often

‘strategic learners’; adapting their approach to learning to suit the subject, environment, time constraints and assessment type (Entwistle and Tait 1990, Entwistle and Peterson 2004, Hounsell and Hounsell 2007). Entwistle, McCune and Hounsell (2002 p.7) develop this idea further and define this as ‘organised study and directed effort’. In more recent work, Entwistle and Entwistle (2003 p.19), in their exploration of

48

memorising and understanding, urge caution warning ‘against too ready

a linkage of intention to any specific process in student learning: a deep intention can involve rote memorisation, while a surface approach at university level will include understanding, even if it is reproduced from lecture notes’ again implying that these classifications may be overly

simplistic.

Aggarwal and Bates (2000) identified external and internal motivators for learning in their participants exemplifying another dualism in the

literature on pharmacy education. They classified extrinsic factors impacting on learning as encompassing goals, promotion, examination, pressures, image and competition and internal factors affecting the intrinsic desire to learn as internal standards, interest, self-esteem and personal autonomy.

Garavalia, Scheuer and Carroll (2002) studied pharmacy students’ motivation in a School of Pharmacy in the USA using a psychological instrument, the Motivated Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MLSC) (Pintrich et al. 1991 cited in Garavalia, Scheuer and Carroll 2002). They also divided motivation into extrinsic and intrinsic and found that third year students reported greater intrinsic motivation than first year, indicating that intrinsic motivation may increase as students progress through their studies. The opposite was found with extrinsic motivation, found to be higher in first years, however they report that this

comparison was not statistically significant. The authors explain that their findings differed from prior research however the small numbers (50

49

students from each stage) question the generalisability of their findings and they go on to argue that further longitudinal studies are needed to explore this further.

Langley, Jesson and Wilson (2010) also used extrinsic and intrinsic factors as a classification in their exploration of influences to choose pharmacy as a career in students from across thirteen Schools of Pharmacy in the UK. Although the focus of the study is perhaps not

directly relevant to this study, motivation for the future was explored and the authors observed motivational differences between male and female students with males more ‘interested in opportunities for independence,

through ownership [of a pharmacy] or self-employment’ (p.83) and

females more ‘socially oriented and to be thinking ahead to the work life

balance they want to make’ (p.83).

At first glance, Taylor and Harding’s (2007) exploration of pharmacy students from four Schools of Pharmacy’s perceptions of the

undergraduate curriculum’s function as a foundation for professional practice, appears to be underpinned by ‘learning as participation’ with a focus on professional socialisation and development of professional identity. On further analysis, however they use terms like ‘acquisition’ of professional identity and explain student learning strategies for

professional identity with reference to surface and superficial learning and deep, active learning. Although the study uses qualitative methods, the authors do not foreground the perspectives which influence the design and conduct of the study. The authors found that students’ focus was on

50

acquiring a firm foundation of scientific facts and developing scientific and technically precise skills, seeing this as a ‘rite of passage’ (p.86) before progressing to exposure to professional socialisation. Participants also expressed disappointment about the lack of opportunity for practice placements and the authors conclude that:

professional acculturation becomes secondary to learning the science and the long process of establishing their identity as nascent professionals is deferred (Taylor and Harding 2007 p.87).

Although the research for this thesis did not plan to use a psychological instrument such as the ASI, Aggarwal and Bates’ (2000) qualitative findings on motivators for learning were helpful in developing the

conceptual map used in developing a conceptual framework for this study (see Chapter 3.1.2 and Appendix I) and were compared with the data presented in Chapter 4.