What a Deep Learner Does That a Surface Does Not
Mikhail Chalabine
Programming Environments Laboratory
Department of Computer and Information Science
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping
Sweden
Abstract Some humans perform better in the academy than the others; they just seem to know
how to study. In this short review we highlight a number of simple facts showing why some
individuals are likely to attain better study results.
1 Understanding of learning
Approaches to learning are thoroughly elaborated in the research community. The basic idea is
that students who understand learning as a rote process or whose prior learning experience is of
a peripheral nature are likely to be adopting a superficial way of studying ([1], [7]). The resulting
multi-structural understanding of a subject matter is traditionally known for its poor learning outcomes and a fairly critical dissatisfaction of the agent. Furthermore, it has often been claimed to
cause a major stagnation in the student’s learning capacity [7]. Teachers need to help their students
to become aware of the study process and the effects the daily study routine may impose. It is also
important for a student to recongnise how to develop and profit from an intent approach. In this
survey we summarise what we think is necessary for becoming a, so called, ’deep learner’. We hope
that both teachers and students may find this as a beneficial start point for further investigations in
the area.
2 A cognitive approach to learning
The surface and deep approaches to learning form a cognitive doctrine developed by Säljö, Biggs
and the others ([8], [11], [1]). They were the innovators who began to study an apparent difference
in learning outcome achieved by different individuals. It is fair to claim that the presence of such a
difference can be recorded straightforwardly - we can simply observe that some of the students are
quicker and smarter than the others. This, however, does not show how does this difference appear.
To bring further light on the matter scientists try to follow the idea posted by Säljö who focused
on the correlation between the process and the outcome. In essence he suggested that if the study
outcome between students vary then the whole process of learning should vary as well [11].
3 Learning and motivation
There are a number of factors causing such a variation. We leave out a wordy discussion on students’
motivation and intentions in learning; we simply stress the importance of the matter in a very broad
context. It certainly is a difficult task to teach a human with no intention to learn. Students that
see learning as being imposed externally have no intention to cope with their studies. They are
pragmatically motivated and seek to meet the demands of the task with minimum efforts [8]. As a
matter of fact, it is suggested to ask one self why one is in the class and where the roots of inner
motivation are buried. The scholars have naturally recognised that the motivation and intention that
students have when undertaking their studies is as important as their general study skills. With this
in mind we shall now focus on these skills leaving the motivation behind.
4 Directions in Learning
Coming to this very central point of improving human study performance it is first helpful to consider
the core of the approaches to learning. We shall distinguish between what and how in learning,
where the former represents the ’meaning’ (how important is what I learn) and the latter represents
the ’structure’ (is what I learn now a part of something else) [10].
4.1 Deep and Surface
The ’meaning’ aspect (the what), mentioned above, assigns significance to knowledge being learned.
In 1979 Säljö reported five qualitatively different conceptions of learning [11]. His interviewees saw
it as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a quantitative increase in knowledge,
memorising,
the acquisition, for subsequent utilisation, of facts and methods,
the abstraction of meaning or
an interpretive process aimed at understanding reality.
The 6-th one - learning as developing as a person - was added later by Marton in 1993 [5]. Such a
classification shows that different agents are at different levels of understanding of the learning process. This results in a binary deep-surface classification where an agent who sees learning according
to (1-3) is said to posses a surface view and (4-5) as a more complex deep view.
4.2 Holistic and Atomistic
The how part in the core of approaches to learning concerns the level of interdependence or flatness
of a knowledge structure captured by an agent. With this respect Dahlgren identifies two categories
of learning. The first sees the material with the inner structure missing. The learning process in
this case means pure memorisation of rote data often through constant repetition or assigning some
outer meaning to the material. The other way is based on understanding the inner structure of the
content. In this case the process is directed at recognising known and new parts and relating them
together in a complex framework. To illustrate the difference between learning discrete parts and a
complex understanding of reality Dahlgren underlines: ’Understanding or accepting a colour or a
form in an object is a process very different from understanding the art’ [3]. We conclude that the
difference between the holistic and atomistic approaches lies in the ability to pinpoint and organise
parts of a thing and the ability to integrate such parts in an organised way. Direction and organisation
are important. In both approaches parts can be integrated within them selves but only the holistic
learning allows parts to be woven together to form complex understanding. We should now consider
effective ways to build such understanding.
5 Choosing the right direction in learning
Prosser and Trigwell suggest a model accounting for variation in learning [8]. According to their
classification three elements, e.g.:
1. student’s prior experience,
2. perception of the learning situation, and
3. the chosen approach to learning
affect one’s learning performance. Such a model is based on the research previously conducted at
Gothenburg University where a similar model was used to exhibit a strong correlation between an
approach to learning and the learning outcome. In both cases we find similar examples of students
who, for instance, in reading a text, obtained a correct perception of the actual text meaning only
when using a deep approach. Such an understanding was clearly contrasted with failures caused
by the use of simple memorisation techniques [11]. Investigation of Ramsden also supported the
point that there is a positive effect in subject’s awareness of the learning environment [10]. Among
other things, he identified five key environmental factors that enforce the choice of the approach
to learning and thus the outcome. He showed, for instance, that students who perceived workload
demands to be high and the nature of the assessment as encouraging rote memorisation were likely
to adopt a surface approach; this led to failures and misconceptions in understanding [8]. He also
showed that if a student has a choice of what is to be learned and how (to a certain degree), the
probability of he or she chooses a deep approach is increasing. It is also increasing if the teaching
is of a high quality, which, first of all, means the presence of clear goals and standards for what is
to be learned [8]. We might conclude here that students who see learning in an atomistic (limited)
way are likely to be those who do not adopt deep approaches. Conversely, a holistic way is helpful
in developing complex understanding ([6], [12], [2]). We also note that to choose the right direction
and the right approach is one half of the problem. What is also important is to have the right skills.
6 The learning skill
Our study performance is based on two skills: a study skill and a learning skill [8]. There is an
important difference between these two, which is unfortunately often neglected. By the study skill
we understand a set of distinct abilities in underlining, making notes, summarising and similar.
Note that even though these are important for our ability to learn, they represent the outer layer of
the aspects involved in learning activity. Taken out of the context they are simply separated from
the thoughts of the agent and the content of the study. In a similar way reading, listening, writing
and problem solving can not be seen as only belonging to an exclusive set of study skills; we can
not separate them from the content being learned so we say that they contribute directly to the
learning skill. We posses a study skill if we are able to understand (memorise) a certain content
being tested, e.g., via an examination. Unfortunately such tests are often limited in their cope; they
are likely to verify only a study skill and thus only diverse portions of contiguous knowledge. It is
unfortunate, because for such reasons as time pressure, fear to fail the examination, negative previous
experience and other, often personal reasons, many students target their studies at simply passing the
test rather than understanding the material in an aggregate way. For an excessive discussion of this
important issue the reader is kindly referred to [7]. For our purposes here we note that to posses god
learning skills means to be deep, holistic and complete in the approach and understanding. A student
should be aware and take necessary measures when one’s learning ability stagnates at a primitive
memorisation of quanta rather than structuring and organising them properly in a systematic way.
We also note that deep learners should have both, the study and the learning skill, developed.
7 Improving the learning skill
Deep approach requires holistic learning. A learner should be able to decompose the knowledge
and posses the ability to grasp new parts by relating to knowledge at hand. Whatever we take:
combinations of symbols, facts or complex entities, learning in an atomistic way implies learning
of diverse parts that are unknown to the subject (see [7]). The holistic approach, on the other hand,
additionally implies systematic organisation. What is said is that transition from the atomistic to
holistic approach is one of the most important improvements in one’s learning experience. What is
meant is that to teach oneself to assemble the content to the whole is the biggest problem in learning
to learn [7]. As an example let us consider how can we improve our learning skill in reading and
writing.
7.1 Improve your reading and writing
We acquire knowledge when we read. For such acquisition to be beneficial we require that students
grasp certain things from their reading, e.g., they should broaden their knowledge about the world
and improve their ability to understand different aspects of the reality. In the mid 70s, Marton and
Säljö identified two qualitatively different ways in which students read texts [11]. One of those ways
’focused on the text itself ’ while the other focused on ’the author’s intention, the main point and
the conclusions to be drawn’. A great deal of research has been done to show that there is conceptual difference between reading directed at reproducing the material and understanding it [5]. The
fundamental property of a deep learner is to see the intention of the author and his or her argumentation. Furthermore, adopting holistic approach means achieving a more dynamic dialog with the text
where the learner identifies parts of the consumed knowledge and continuously aggregates them into
a ’big picture’. It may seem that one always ask oneself: ’How are these parts connected to each
other and how the entire picture looks like?’.
Prosser and Webb provide a good example of multi-structural and relational view on writing.
Students were asked to clarify the idea of what constituted an essay in sociology. The answers
ranged from mechanically reproducing a list of points tied together, to reasoning about an argument
addressing a particular problem. In the first case a student said:
I found this essay like - in sociology you can write about your own thoughts and no one
can say this is right or wrong. It’s your opinion and your opinion can’t be wrong.... Other
essays like in ancient history and psychology, most of it is quotes and it’s facts really....it
was on experiments in animals [psychology] and so they were all facts, but this is more,
sociology is more opinions and arguments, they’re different....but I think generally just a
basic idea of what you feel and a list of your points of what you are trying to explain and
continue on what you are feeling and link all your ideas together in one essay.
(Posser and Webb, [9])
In their work Posser and Webb identified such a view as multi-structural. They also showed that
students adopting such a way of looking at the reality subsequently adopted a surface approach to
the writing of the essay. Quite the contrary happened with students with prior conceptions described
as relational, who subsequently adopted a relational approach to the writing. One of the students had
the following view:
...everyone sort of looked on it from their own way and that’s what I like to, discover a
way of you know how I’m going to deal with it. Also because...you could bring in examples
and go to different books...just different examples which I like bringing into essays, rather
than just facts... Well, I mean the standard thing is to argue about, about something which
means um...to try to prove something or disprove another thing and to show the pro and
cons...actually create an argument for this particular question... understand something a lot
better, a lot deeper which then you can link up with other things...to systematically logically
present all the evidence for what I was trying to show.
(Posser and Webb, [9])
8 Conclusions
We must allow for a certain degree of freedom in the way we exercise approaches to learning; refer,
e.g., to Laurillard who reports on a half of individuals choosing disparate approaches on diverse
occasions ([4], [8]). This brings us to the start point where we discover why some of us are more
natural in learning than the others. We believe that it is antithetic to evoking holistic behaviour
externally or falling for rote memorisation. In our view, we progress when we cognitively assemble
a unified knowledge structure; we relate new blocks to the apparatus at hand; we associate and when
our intention comes from the inside.
References
[1] J.B. Biggs and K.F. Collis. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York,
Academic Press, 1982.
[2] K. et al. Crawford. Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: the perspectives of students
entering univeristy. Learning and Instruction, (4), 1994.
[3] L.O. Dahlgren. Learning conceptions and outcomes. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N.J. Entwistle,
editors, The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education.
Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 2nd edition edition, 1997.
[4] D. Laurillard. Styles and approaches in student learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N.J. Entwistle,
editors, The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education.
Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 2nd edition edition, 1997.
[5] F. Marton, G. Dall’Alba, and E. Beaty. Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational
Research, 19, 1993.
[6] F. Marton and R. Saljo. Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N.J. Entwistle, editors,
The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. Edinburgh,
Scottish Academic Press, 2nd edition edition, 1997.
[7] Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell, and Noel Entwistle. Hur vi lär. PRISMA, 1986.
[8] Prosser Michael and Trigwell Keith. Understanding Learning and Teaching. The experience in Higher
Education. Open Univeristy Press, 1999.
[9] M. Prosser and C. Webb. Relating the process of undergraduate essay writing to the finished product.
Studies in Higher Education, (19), 1994.
[10] P. Ramsden. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London, Routledge, 1992.
[11] R. Säljö. Learning in the learner’s perspective. some common-sense conceptions. In Reports from the
Department of Education. Department of Education and Educational Research, Univeristy of Gothenburg, 1976.
[12] E.J. van Rossum and S.M. Schenk. The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and
learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, (54), 1984.