Van Rossum & Schenk’s (1984) claimed that large numbers of students have, in the first phase of their study in a university, a reproductive conception of learning. As indicated in section (2.3.10) Perry modelled cognitive development and a reproductive conception could be an indication of being on position one or two of the model (i.e the lowest levels of cognitive development). Evans & Nation (2000) agree:
“Many students begin their university experience with a history of success through effective and instrumental learning strategies. They are unskilled and often unwilling to make the efforts to use tools and techniques that require them to think deeply and to collaborate extensively with peers”. (p.31)
61
Further evidence of this reproductive conception of learning at this time in students academic career comes from Australia in a study by Zeegers (2001) who describes the Australian secondary system as being targeted towards the very competitive university entrance procedure, which is based largely on results obtained in a state examination system. Such a system, from a student perspective, may appear to encourage rote learning as a means to success. In the same study, Zeegers references another unpublished survey that found that commencing tertiary education science students commented that they continued to use the same limited learning strategies at university as they had used in the past, as they see higher education as a continuation of their secondary studies.
Another finding reported in the literature is that students in most undergraduate courses become increasingly surface and decreasingly deep in their approach to learning (Biggs 1987a; Gow & Kember 1990; Watkins & Hattie 1985 and Zeegers 2001) which results in the conclusion that influencing a student to adopt a deep approach is difficult. It is worth noting, that again the majority of these studies would have used the SPQ or ASI as a basis for these results. Gow & Kember (1990) found the opposite result using a combination of the SPQ and semi structured interviews. In problem-based learning, Duke et al. (1998) found that prolonged exposure to problem-based learning resulted in a shift from surface approaches to deep. So then the question becomes how to affect a change in a student population towards a higher order approach. The feasibility of converting a student’s approach to learning, to the higher order deep approach and the methods by which this conversion can be achieved, is a hotly debated topic in approaches to learning research. Going back as far as the original study by Marton & Saljo (1976b), attempts have been made at influencing a conversion from a surface approach to a deep approach.
In the 1976b paper Marton and Saljo describe an experiment to induce a deep approach to learning. Using reading tasks again, like they did in the 1976a paper, they separated a group of students into a group they designated deep learners and a group they designated surface learners. These students had not been interviewed prior to being put into groups and found to be deep and surface learners. Instead it was the intention of the experiment to promote
62
the type of learning of the name of the group in that group. Each group had three reading tasks with the deep learning group being asked questions designed to induce deep level thinking and the surface learning group being asked questions designed to induce surface level thinking. After the third reading task the students were asked questions intended to measure surface and deep aspects of the contents they had just read. The findings found that influencing a deep approach proved difficult. The majority of the students, who were exposed to the questions that were to induce a deeper level of thinking, using the predictability of the task to develop an algorithm for learning to recall the text and summarise in one or two sentences a process. Marton and Saljo called this ‘technifying’ and saw it as a precursor to the strategic learning approach. Another interesting finding from this research was that students had preconceptions on what a reading task demanded and had used these preconceptions as they went about the task, i.e. these were students’ perceptions of the learning environment.
Marton & Saljo (1997) found through their research that it was easier to bring about a surface approach than to induce a deep approach to learning and this was subsequently backed by Trigwell & Prosser (1991). Arzi & White (1986) found, training students to ask reflective questions resulted in students just giving modified replications of the questions they had been taught to ask. In many ways the Marton & Saljo (1976b) experiment is framed in the same way, when it proposes that by training students in answering deep approach questions they would then have a deep approach.
As is pointed out in section 2.3.11, meta-cognitive development can be matched to students taking a deeper approach to their learning and that the aim of this research project is to increase awareness of what a deeper approach might entail. Research by Hall et al. (2004) found an increase in students adopting a deep approach due to an increase in the use of deep strategies - reading widely, searching for relationships and integrating with previous knowledge without developing the intrinsic interest in the subject. Searching for relationships and integrating with previous knowledge if not previously displayed would be evidence of meta-cognitive development. Wilson & Fowler (2005), Biggs & Rihn (1984) and Dart & Clarke (1991) have come up with similar findings of students adopting deep
63
strategies without the intrinsic interest in the subject with Wilson and Fowler concluding that learning behaviour is more amenable to environmental influence than underlying motivation.
In the past, research on approaches to learning in courses that have been specifically designed to induce deep learning through problem-based learning or courses designed under the influence of constructivist principles have had mixed success in inducing students to take a deeper approach to their learning. McKay & Kember (1997); Gordon & Debus (2002); Hall et al. (2004); Wilson & Fowler (2005) and Newble & Clarke (1986) have all been successful in transforming surface approach learners to deep approach learners with Newble & Clark (1986) and Dods (1997) finding a deeper approach to learning in medical education through the implementation of problem-based learning. Correspondingly, Gijbels & Dochy (2006), Groves (2005), and Struyen et al. (2005) found the opposite to be true, that students in their active learning environments in fact became more superficial in their learning and the number of students using a deep approach decreased. These studies are using inventories to measure approach to learning and as already discussed, it is inappropriate to use the SPQ or the ASI especially in an active learning environment like a problem-based learning course without first qualitatively evaluating the accuracy of the inventory for the environment. Also as Barrows (2000) has indicated for research to be prescriptive of the problem-based learning environment, the quality of the learning environment and the validity of calling it problem-based learning must be assessed.
Research by Nijuis et al. (2005) and Segers et al. (2006) found that students who were in a problem-based learning environment adopted more surface and less deep approaches to their learning. Case & Gunstone (2002) aimed to promote a deep approach by reducing the curriculum by 25%, introducing more active learning in the lectures, changing the assessment to be more conceptual in nature and introducing unlimited time examinations to facilitate students engaging with the concepts in examinations instead of focusing on working fast. They had some success shifting students from the “algorithmic approach” (surface) to a “conceptual approach” (deep). Another finding in previous research was that after an initial period of time spent in active learning environments there seemed to be no
64
effect on the number of students adopting a deep approach (Mok et al. 2009), this is contradicted by findings from Duke et al’s. (1998) research . Again, this lack of effect could be due to the way the approach was measured (SPQ) or more indicative that using an active learning environment is not enough without meta-cognitively developing the students as well.
An alternative to specifically designing course content to make taking a deep approach explicit to an academic task, is to use programmes such as the “learning to learn” as part of the course design (Martin & Ramsden 1987). Norton & Crowley (1995) developed two programmes designed to improve student learning called a study skills programme and a learning to learn programme respectively. A group of history students were split into two separate groups with each group attending one of the programmes. The study skills programme consisted of lectures on a set of study skills such as note taking, essay writing and some practical exercise and pointedly focused on skills separately from the curriculum. The learning to learn programme on the other hand was meta-cognitive in nature, focusing on structured group discussions which took into account the students approaches to learning and their perceptions of the learning environment while still covering the same basic skills of the study skills programme. Another difference in the learning to learn programme was that it attempted to directly link the sessions with relevant content within the curriculum. Their results showed a definite change towards higher learning conceptions as would be expected from the previous discussion of meta-cognition. Norton & Crowley (1995) carried out a similar study in the context of a psychology course and implemented a similar ‘learning to learn’ programme and they also found that students moved from an initially naïve conception of learning to a more sophisticated one by the end of the programme.
Case & Marshall (2004) bring up a very good point in regard to Marshall’s course of foundation engineering in which the course objectives are aimed at students developing competency in basic skills. They raise an interesting question, should a deep approach be encouraged by the tutors, which may not be rewarded on assessments or should a more
65
strategic or surface approach be encouraged with the danger being that students never apply a deep approach to similar situations where it is required.
2.3.13 The effect the approach by students has on their learning