How Students Learn: Deep vs Surface Learning

1. How Students Learn: Deep vs Surface Learning Patrice Ludwig James Madison University Department of Biology

2. Objectives • Participants will • Be introduced to the history and ideas of learning • Become familiar with deep vs. surface learning • Become familiar with some strategies to facilitate deep learning • Become familiar with learning taxonomies

3. Backward Design To do ANY of these things relies on knowing a bit about how students learn and our role in that.

4. What is learning? • Take a minute to write down a response to the following prompts… • Learning is… • Teaching is…

5. How faculty perceive learning and teaching • Interviews in which faculty described what they mean by “learning” and “teaching” and beliefs about teaching and assessment… • Teacher focused and content-oriented • Focusing on student activity using their own definition of learning • Student focused and learning oriented • Where did your responses fall? Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor 1994, Van Driel et al 1997, Kember 1998

6. Definitions and History Late 1960’s – Learning is meaningful or rote Marton and Saljo 1976 – seminal work- used interviews and descriptions based on students to classify students as taking a deep or surfaceapproach Biggs 1987 and Marton 1983 – describe the general framework and defining features of the two approaches Biggs 1994 - Deep vs surface related to approaches to learning

7. Approaches to learning Marton and Saljo’s work led to: Student approach to learning (SAL) theory • meta-theory for conceptualizing teaching and learning, • Two major directions: • Phenomenography(Marton, 1981; Prosser & Trigwell, 1998) also called objectivist : learner’s perspective determines what is learned, not necessarily what the teacher intends should be learned • Constructivism and systems theory (Biggs, 1999; Dart & Boulton-Lewis, 1998): learn ers construct knowledge with their own activities, building on what they already know (Biggs, 1993a; Entwistle& Waterston, 1988)

8. Conceptions of Learning Surface Deep Quantitative increase in knowledge Memorizing Acquiring facts, skills, and methods Making sense or abstracting meaning Interpreting and understanding reality in a different way Saljo 1979

9. Deep, Surface, and Strategic

10. Differences between Surface Focus on “signs” Focus on unrelated parts of the task Information for assessment is simply memorized Facts and concepts are associated unreflectively Principles are not distinguished from examples Task is treated as external imposition Emphasis is external, from demands of assessment Deep • Focus on what is “signified” • Relates previous knowledge to new knowledge • Relates knowledge from different courses • Relates theoretical ideas to every day experience • Relates and distinguishes evidence and argument • Organizes and structures content into coherent whole • Emphasis is internal, from within the student

11. Student benefits of deep learning Tend to earn higher grades, and retain, integrate and transfer information at higher rates (Biggs 1988, Deep Approaches to Learning 4 1989; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Prosser & Millar, 1989; Ramsden, 2003; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984; Whelan, 1988). Enjoyable learning experience relative to the surface approach (Tagg, 2003).

12. Link to motivation Deep Surface • Intrinsic Motivation- motivated from within • Interest or enjoyment in the task itself • attribute educational results to factors under their own control (autonomy) • Believe they have skills to be effective agents in reaching educational goals (self-efficacy) • are interested in mastering at topic, not just achieving good grades • Extrinsic Motivation – motivated from outside • Interest derives from external reward • Or threat of punishment • Competition is an external motivator (encourages “beating” an opponent” not just the joy of doing the activity).

14. Example of student actions for surface and deep learning • Surface: reading and rereading the textbook chapters—Ineffective because it • is NOT active (Mackenzie, 1994), • involves shallow processing (Craik & Tulving, 1975), • provides no feedback (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). • Deep: active strategies such as studying lecture notes, making chapter notes, outlining, and coming to office hours, involve deep processing and might promote understanding of the course material (Justice & Dornan, 2001) • How can we help students develop deep active strategies for studying?

15. Factors leading to surface learning Teaching and assessment methods often encourage a surface approach, because they are not aligned to the aims of teaching the subject

16. Factors leading to surface learning From the student’s side : • An intention only to achieve a minimal pass. Such may arise from a ‘meal ticket’ view of university or from a requirement to take a subject irrelevant to the student’s program. • Non-academic priorities exceeding academic ones. • Insufficient time; too high a workload. • Misunderstanding requirements, such as thinking that factual recall is adequate. • A cynical view of education. • High anxiety. • A genuine inability to understand particular content at a deep level.

17. Factors Leading to Surface Learning From the teacher’s side : • Teaching piecemeal by bullet lists, not bringing out the intrinsic structure of the topic or subject. (We hasten to add that some bullet lists, like these two here, for instance, are OK.) • Assessing for independent facts, inevitably the case when using short- answer and multiple-choice tests. • Teaching, and especially assessing, in a way that encourages cynicism: for example, ‘I hate teaching this section, and you’re going to hate earning it, but we’ve got to cover it.’ • Providing insufficient time to engage the tasks; emphasizing coverage at the expense of depth. • Creating undue anxiety or low expectations of success: ‘Anyone who can’t understand this isn’t fit to be at university.’

18. Factors Leading to Deep Learning From the student’s side : An intention to engage the task meaningfully and appropriately. Such an intention may arise from an intrinsic curiosity or from a determination to do well. Appropriate background knowledge. The ability to focus at a high conceptual level, working from first principles, which in turn requires a well-structured knowledge base. A genuine preference, and ability, for working conceptually rather than with unrelated detail.

19. Factors Leading to Deep Learning From the teacher’s side : Teaching in such a way as to explicitly bring out the structure of the topic or subject. Teaching to elicit an active response from students, e.g. by questioning, presenting problems, rather than teaching to expound information. Teaching by building on what students already know. Confronting and eradicating students’ misconceptions. Assessing for structure rather than for independent facts. Teaching and assessing in a way that encourages a positive working atmosphere, so students can make mistakes and learn from them. Emphasizing depth of learning, rather than breadth of coverage. In general, and most importantly, using teaching and assessment methods that support the explicit aims and intended outcomes of the course.

20. Teaching for Deep Learning (Rhem, 1995, p. 4; McKay and Kember, 1997, p. 65). A well-structured knowledge base with a focus on concepts, integration of knowledge, and a cumulative experience. An appropriate motivational level, with an emphasis on intrinsic motivation and a sense of “ownership” of the material. Learner activity associated with active, not passive, learning. Interaction with others, including student-teacher interactions and student-student interactions

21. Evidence based strategies to promote deep learning Use metacognitive strategies- reflections. Will help with… transfer and problem solving (Campione & Brown, 1990; Pellegrino, Chuowsky, & Glaser, 2001; Rozencwajg, 2003) self-regulation (Butler & Winne, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2003), self-efficacy and motivation (Wolters & Pintrich, 2001; Zimmerman, 1995, 1998) development of expertise (Sternberg, 2001) academic achievement (Hartman, 2001; Justice & Dornan, 2001; McCormick, 2003; Peverly, Brobst, Graham, & Shaw, 2003; Schraw, 1994)

22. Evidence based strategies to promote deep learning Hay ( 2007) asked post-graduate students to make pre and post concept maps in a research methods class. By qualitatively comparing the maps, he discovered examples of movement from little to deep knowledge and from deep to reorganized deep understanding as well as zero understanding or

23. Evidence based strategies to promote deep learning Voss et al. 2011 Use constructivist philosophy, literally Students either developed or played an educational game Researchers measured effect on motivation (correlated with deep vs. surface learning) using SPQ No gender difference Students who developed the game increased in motivation from pre to during while game player’s motivation decreased.

24. Evidence based strategies to promote deep learning Problem Based Learning Student based strategy – thinking strategies and domain knowledge Students identify what they know, what they need to know, and how to get that information that may lead to a resolution Students develop flexible knowledge, effective problem solving skills, self-directed learning, effective collaboration skills and intrinsic motivation

25. Evidence based strategies to promote deep learning POGIL: Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Inquiry based- learning cycle of exploration, concept invention and application Student centered strategy Small groups with individual roles to ensure all students are fully engaged in learning process Focus on core concepts and encourage a deep understanding Develops process of critical thinking

26. How do you know where your students stand? • Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (and revisions of such) • Deep, Surface, and Achieving/strategic approaches • Indicators of preferred, ongoing, and contextual approaches to learning • Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) (and revisions of such)(Biggs, 1987; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Entwistle& Ramsden, 1983). • Indicators of reproducing orientation, meaning orientation, and achieving, orientation (Entwistle & McCune, 2004) • MSLQ: college students’ motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies for a college course (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1993). • 3 broad motivational constructs: expectancy, value and effort http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/pdf/ex_2factor_spq.pdf

27. How do you know where your students stand? • The types of questions they ask… • Watts et al. (1997b): • Consolidation questions: confirm explanations and consolidate understanding of new ideas in science • Exploration questions: seek to expand knowledge and test constructs • Elaboration questions: examine claims and counterclaims, reconcile different understandings, resolve conflicts, test circumstances, track in and around the ideas and their consequences. Watts, Gould, and Alsop 1997, Chin and Brown 2000, Chin 2002

28. Taxonomies overview Deep learning tends to happen when students work on higher- order objectives.

29. Revised Bloom

30. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: Cognitive domain Anderson/Krathwohl 2001

32. SOLO taxonomy (Structure of Learning Outcomes)

33. 6 Facets of Understanding Wiggins and McTighe 1998 Understanding by Design

34. Foundational • Knowledge • Understanding • Remembering • Information • Ideas Learning How to Learn • Application • Skills • Thinking • Critical, creative, practical • Managing projects • Caring • Developing new: • Feelings • Interests • Values • Human Dimension • Learning about • Oneself • Others • Integration • Connecting: • Ideas • People • Realms of Life Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning (Fink 2003, 30)

36. Questions to ask yourself when designing assessments Does my homework assignment challenge students to grapple with key course material (the knowledge base) with a focus on concepts, integration of knowledge, and a cumulative experience? Is there a written product turned in by each student to provide evidence of this engagement and to allow students to build on their individual learning? Is the homework assignment sufficiently motivating, with an emphasis on intrinsic motivation and a sense of “ownership” of the material, often brought on by choice? Have I designed a motivating reward system that builds in individual accountability but encourages cooperation? Do I use class time or structure online experiences to get students actively involved with the material? Does this active involvement include interactions with others, such as student-teacher interactions and student-student interactions?