Review of ‘Students Approaches to Learning and Teachers Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education
Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:32
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Tom Cheek, Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 11:44
Approaches to Learning
Interview based research in Britain and Sweden in 1970’s identified three approaches to studying in Higher Education:
Deep Surface Approach – based upon understanding the meaning
Surface Approach – based upon memorising the course material for assessment purposes
Strategic Approach – based upon obtaining highest grades
Students following problem based curricula are more likely to adopt a ‘Deep Surface’ approach
Ramsden (1991) devised the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – this provided a reliable and valid way of monitoring perceptions of students across variety of disciplines and in several countries.
Marton (1976) argued that students who adopt a ‘deep surface’ approach take an active role whilst those adopting a ‘surface approach’ take a passive role.
Saljo (1979) identified 5 different conceptions of what learning meant to learners:
Learning is an increase of knowledge
Learning is memorising
Learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures
Learning as the abstraction of meaning
Learning an an interpretative process aimed at understanding of reality
Van Rossum and Schenk (1984) – those questioned with a leaning to 1-3 used a surface approach. Those with a leaning to 4/5 used a deep approach. Students who lean to 1-3 may find it hard to adapt to a student centred curriculum.
Von Rossum and Schenk (1987) – identified a sixth conception:
A conscious process fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony and happiness or changing society
Older Students more likely to lean to conceptions 4-6. In research, those reaching their later years of studying showed indications of conception 6.
Approaches to Teaching
Identified five different approaches to teaching. Kember (1997):
Teaching as imparting information
Teaching as transmitting structured knowledge
Teaching as an interaction between the teacher and the student
Teaching as facilitating understanding of the part of the student
Teaching as bringing about conceptual change and intellectual development
There is little fact that conceptions of teaching develop with experience or training (apart from conceptual change training).
Teachers holding a student centred and learning orientated conception of teaching are more likely to adopt a student focused approach.
Learning Design can support the approach to integrating activity that encourages the teacher to lean to the conceptions of 3-5 and learning conceptions of 4-6. I think the most practical design tool that can support his would be the '4 Facets of Learning', mainly due to the simpleness to apply and gain an intial positive approach from teachers.
Linking these conceptions to Sfard's Metaphors I would summarise that Acquisiton leans to the learning concepts of 1-3 and teaching concepts 1-2, and the participation metaphor leaning to the learning concepts of 4-6 and teaching concepts of 3-5.
My own experiences of learning I feel are much driven by the teacher's concept of teaching rather than an inclined preference. Although I would consider that when training or learning has been compulsory to me I tend to lean on the learning concepts 1-3, whereas when it is an option or something I have selected my experiences have been much more leaning to concepts 4-6.
Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits my own definition? For my most recent OU study definately 4-6 but with previous learning it has been normally 1-3.
References:
John T. E. Richardson (2005) Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’
Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25:6, 673-680, DOI: 10.1080/01443410500344720
Review of ‘Students Approaches to Learning and Teachers Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education
Approaches to Learning
Interview based research in Britain and Sweden in 1970’s identified three approaches to studying in Higher Education:
Students following problem based curricula are more likely to adopt a ‘Deep Surface’ approach
Ramsden (1991) devised the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) – this provided a reliable and valid way of monitoring perceptions of students across variety of disciplines and in several countries.
Marton (1976) argued that students who adopt a ‘deep surface’ approach take an active role whilst those adopting a ‘surface approach’ take a passive role.
Saljo (1979) identified 5 different conceptions of what learning meant to learners:
Van Rossum and Schenk (1984) – those questioned with a leaning to 1-3 used a surface approach. Those with a leaning to 4/5 used a deep approach. Students who lean to 1-3 may find it hard to adapt to a student centred curriculum.
Von Rossum and Schenk (1987) – identified a sixth conception:
Older Students more likely to lean to conceptions 4-6. In research, those reaching their later years of studying showed indications of conception 6.
Approaches to Teaching
Identified five different approaches to teaching. Kember (1997):
There is little fact that conceptions of teaching develop with experience or training (apart from conceptual change training).
Teachers holding a student centred and learning orientated conception of teaching are more likely to adopt a student focused approach.
Learning Design can support the approach to integrating activity that encourages the teacher to lean to the conceptions of 3-5 and learning conceptions of 4-6. I think the most practical design tool that can support his would be the '4 Facets of Learning', mainly due to the simpleness to apply and gain an intial positive approach from teachers.
Linking these conceptions to Sfard's Metaphors I would summarise that Acquisiton leans to the learning concepts of 1-3 and teaching concepts 1-2, and the participation metaphor leaning to the learning concepts of 4-6 and teaching concepts of 3-5.
My own experiences of learning I feel are much driven by the teacher's concept of teaching rather than an inclined preference. Although I would consider that when training or learning has been compulsory to me I tend to lean on the learning concepts 1-3, whereas when it is an option or something I have selected my experiences have been much more leaning to concepts 4-6.
Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits my own definition? For my most recent OU study definately 4-6 but with previous learning it has been normally 1-3.
References:
John T. E. Richardson (2005) Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’
Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25:6, 673-680, DOI: 10.1080/01443410500344720