To judge from Richardson's description (2005, p. 675) of Marton's contribution, students who regard learning as something that happens to them are those who take a 'surface' approach to learning (that is, one based upon memorising information and material for the sake of assessment). They take a 'passive' role, in contrast to 'deep' learners who 'take an active role and see learning as something they themselves do' (Richardson, 2005, p. 675).
In Sfard's conception of learning, there is no room for such passivity, even when this learning is characterised as a form of acquisition. Even the acquisitive learner is an active subject, not a passive object, who accumulates, refines and combines knowledge and learning objects 'to form ever richer cognitive structures (Sfard, 1998, p. 1). The defining actions are having, possessing, not just passive reception, which reflects the predominance of constructionist, interactionist and socio-cultural theories.
With learning perceived as a form of participation, for Sfard 'the permanence of having gives way to the flux of doing' in an ongoing 'process of becoming' (1998, p. 2). This is akin to the sixth perception of learning as 'change as a person'. The defining actions are belonging, participating, communicating.
For Sfard, even the most passive consumer of learning (the worst, more regressive form of acquisition) is in some way disposed towards learning, while the passive, acted-upon learner described by Richardson seems to have little or no inclination towards learning.
Comments
New comment
I found Richardson's report of Marton's description of surface learning hard to take. I tend to think of surface learning as something that is useful in its own right. Sometimes I just need a basic knowledge of a concept. For example, I take notes for a student in third year geology. It is really quite complex stuff and I do not understand all of it and do not need to. I do value my surface knowledge of geology as it helps me to write the notes at speed without pausing to work out how to spell certain words.
Perhaps a continuum would be easier to understand. From Marton's passive role where reluctant learners are in a classroom where they really do not want to be (Key Skillls level 1 numeracy in my experience!) through vaguely interested students all the way to self motivated independent learners.
What do you think?
New comment
Hi Matthew,
I seem to have come to similar conclusions to you here (promise no cheating!
) in that even the acquisition metaphor requires some sort of activity in the learner. I'm not sure I believe that 'passive' learning, in the way Marton describes it, ever really happens? what do you think?
Surface learning
The description of the surface approach really reminded me of a fairly significant proportion of my learners who treat going to English class a bit like going to the cinema - they expect to turn up after work and sit there watching the entertainment, have a nice chat with their companions (in Catalan or Spanish, of course) and want a list of things to memorise in order to pass the exam at the end. OK, the cinema analogy falls down a bit there, although they do often bring snacks to class!
There is a concept in language learning known as the plateau which I think is relevant to the discussion of deep and surface learning. People tend to stop progressing in the language at a certain level, and that level (or plateau) is apparently unrelated to any other factor than simply being the level at which they have enough for their needs (I know I need a citation for this bit, but in the meantime, trust me on it!). Interestingly, they do not always recognise that the plateau is because they've got the minimum they feel they need, and blame the sudden lack of progress on their own lack of ability or time, or the difficulty of the course, or the teacher's weird accent, or whatever. My cinema learners tend to plateau at lower levels (and moan more about it) than those who invest more time and effort both in and outside class (surprise surprise!)
The difference between my cinema learners and your surface learning of (geology was it?) is that you have fairly consciously, and realistically, calculated the amount of personal investment you want to put in with the level of learning you want to attain. I guess that's true of most learners, including those on H800, whether they admit it or not.
This could just be my random and worthless speculation, of course, but if it is true, it does have implications. How many learners at the beginning of a course really want to deepen their understanding, and how many just want the qualification? Does it matter, given that good course design/tuition quality may change initial surface learners to deep learners by the end? How can we go about creating the conditions for that, or should we hand over that responsibility to the learner?
New comment
Thanks for the thoughts. Carolyn, your thoughts are especially interesting. How do we know how 'deep' our learning is going to be? And whose conception of 'deep' are we using? It takes different strokes, after all. 'What might be deep for you, may not be deep for some.' In a discussion earlier this week, we mentioned that deep may be its own reward. How does the educator provide or support 'deep' learning, given that it is perhaps an after-effect? Can it be guaranteed? Should learning outcomes be given in the three degrees of profundity?