STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING

STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING

Conceptions of learning held by students have been shown to relate closely to the ways in which they approach learning (Biggs, 1987; Dart, Burnett, Purdie, Boulton‐ Lewis, Campbell & Smith, 2001; Eklund‐Myrskog, 1998; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b; Watkins, 1983). An extensive range of international studies has revealed the relation between the conceptions of learning held by students and their approaches to learning, which, in turn, affect the quality of their educational outcomes (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989; Dart, 1998; Eklund‐Myrskog, 1998; Marton, 1988; Prosser & Millar, 1989; Ryan, 1984; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). These studies have found that students who held quantitative or reproductive conceptions of learning tended to use surface approaches to learning, while those who held qualitative conceptions were more likely to engage in deep approaches to learning (Biggs, 1993).

The distinction between deep and surface approaches to learning was derived from empirical research carried out by Marton and Säljö in 1976. In their research, students were asked to read a text and answer questions about what they had read and how they went about reading it. The result was two distinctive groupings of

approaches to learning and that the ways in which the students approached their readings were dependent on their intentions (Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b). In one group, students focused on merely reading the text without making the effort to know what the text was about, while in the other group, students focused on what the text was about, for example, on the author’s intention, the main point and the conclusion to be drawn (Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b). It was concluded that the former group of students adopted a surface approach to learning and the latter adopted a deep approach. Marton and Säljö’s (1976a, 1976b) findings became the foundation for further studies into students’ approaches to learning. A review of these more recent studies is presented next to provide current understandings of students’ approaches to learning.

Deep and surface approaches to learning

A deep approach to learning is ‘characterised by an intention to seek meaning of the material being studied’ (Dart et al., 2001, p. 262). When students adopt deep approaches, they use abstract frameworks for conceptualising a particular task; they are independent and reflective; they achieve well‐structured and integrated outcomes, and they usually enjoy the learning process (Biggs, 1987; Candy, 1991; Iran ‐Nejad, 1990). Students actively construct knowledge for themselves in the deep approach (Dart, 1997; Dart et al., 2001; Tang, 1998). Moreover, students who adopt a deep approach examine the logic of arguments; engage in vigorous and critical interaction with knowledge content; discover and use organising principles to integrate ideas (Biggs, 1993; Ramsden, 1992). They relate evidence to A deep approach to learning is ‘characterised by an intention to seek meaning of the material being studied’ (Dart et al., 2001, p. 262). When students adopt deep approaches, they use abstract frameworks for conceptualising a particular task; they are independent and reflective; they achieve well‐structured and integrated outcomes, and they usually enjoy the learning process (Biggs, 1987; Candy, 1991; Iran ‐Nejad, 1990). Students actively construct knowledge for themselves in the deep approach (Dart, 1997; Dart et al., 2001; Tang, 1998). Moreover, students who adopt a deep approach examine the logic of arguments; engage in vigorous and critical interaction with knowledge content; discover and use organising principles to integrate ideas (Biggs, 1993; Ramsden, 1992). They relate evidence to

A surface approach, by contrast, is the act of reproducing materials through the use of routine procedures such as memorisation (Marton & Säljö, 1976a, 1976b). In the surface approach, students are more concerned with the amount of knowledge gained through procedural techniques such as memorisation, and concentrate only on what is required for assessment. They do not reflect on purpose or strategies because the intentions are simply to reproduce parts of the content (Dart, Burnett, Purdie, Boutlon‐Lewis, Campbell & Smith, 2001; Entwistle, 1997). For these reasons, a surface approach is often associated with rote learning. In contrast to the deep approach, this approach is not linked to child‐centred learning because it is not focused on arriving at meaningful understanding of an aspect of the world. From an educator’s perspective, a student adopting a deep approach is a desirable outcome because it shows his or her engagement in learning.

Further studies on students’ approaches to learning found an additional approach, namely, the achieving or strategic approach to learning (Biggs, 1993). The achieving approach focuses on the product of learning and has been described as an ego‐ enhancement strategy that highlights a student’s competitiveness (Chan, 2003). Students adopting an achieving approach devise and execute strategic plans to Further studies on students’ approaches to learning found an additional approach, namely, the achieving or strategic approach to learning (Biggs, 1993). The achieving approach focuses on the product of learning and has been described as an ego‐ enhancement strategy that highlights a student’s competitiveness (Chan, 2003). Students adopting an achieving approach devise and execute strategic plans to