This is a work in progress. If citing please use Middleton, Dave (2012) 'Facilitating 'deep learning'' Posted at http://helearn.blogspot.com/2012/01/facilitating-deep-learning.html
References are linked to a bibliography page. They openin a separate window.
In their book 'A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges' Cannon and Newble (
2008) discuss the differences between deep, surface and strategic learning. Most of what they say is related to the face to face situation, but it is sometimes asserted that whilst online learning is good for surface learning, deeper learning requires a face to face environment. This assertion, made more than once by colleagues, assumes that surface learning means study skills rather than the deeper subject knowledge which is the key to understanding an academic discipline.
Cannon and Newbie discuss surface learning as that learning which is reliant on memorisation, particularly of the type of knowledge required to pass exams. I wonder how many lecturers can remember most of what they had to know to pass their own exams. I know that if I had to sit my finals again tomorrow I would probably fail. Most of what I wrote has faded into the mists of my deeper memory. Perhaps I could access it if really required to do so, but I am fairly confident that most of my higher education was conducted at the surface or strategic level. That is to say I learned what I needed to know in order to perform the task that I was preparing for: exams. At the same time the structure of my degree allowed me to develop an interest in specific areas which I have not lost and which I have been fortunate enough to go on and study further as a vocation.
Deeper learning, according to Cannon and Newble is "motivated by an interest in the subject matter and a need to make sense of things and to interpret knowledge." (pp3-4) What seems key to this development of deeper learning is both the learning environment, and it is clearly this which Cannon and Newbie feel is often lacking; and, the motivation of individual learners. As a manager of Associate Lecturers at the Open University I am often told that students 'these days' are 'more instrumental'. In other words, they are seeking only the surface knowledge required to pass the module they are currently studying. I am sure that this is true, to some extent at least. But, it is also true that when people hark back to previous eras they often do so with rose-tinted spectacles firmly in place. This is shown very clearly in the historian Jeffrey Pearson's brilliant book 'Hooligan' in which each golden era is preceded by an even more golden era. Perhaps what educators do is to compare their students apparent lack of interest in the deeper elements of their subject matter with their own intrinsic interest in a subject which they have made a vocation.
What I am less clear about is why deeper learning should be associated with a particular form of tuition? Why would face to face tuition facilitate deeper learning more effectively than an online system such as Elluminate (
www.elluminate.com)? Cannon and Newble argue that "there are opportunities to address many of the ills of education by using modern technology" (p8)
What they are suggesting is that too much modern educational practice is based on a surface approach to learning which emphasizes exam success over the acquisition of subject specific knowledge. Specifically, their view seems to be that as we have engaged in the 'massification' of higher education so the emphasis has shifted from developing individuals as critical scholars toward an approach with a clear leaning toward vocational learning. It is not that vocational learning cannot include deeper learning but that in order to satisfy the demands of vocationalism that universities have become overly obsessed with learning outcomes measured only by exam success.
A shift toward deeper learning requires a shift in the way in which lecturers/tutors/teachers approach their role, a shift in the emphasis on administrative measures, and a shift in the environment in which learners are introduced to their subjects. This shift requires an emphasis on "student independence; student choice; opportunities to work with other people; an environment that is challenging, supportive and low threat; frequent, constructive and useable feedback; well-structured and clear organization; active involvement in realistic learning objectives; an emphasis on higher level objectives; practice and reinforcement." (p9) That list is adapted from Theodore Marchese's article on deeper learning.
Marchese, freely available on the web, argues that the problem is both teaching and learning. Teachers teach in a style which encourages surface learning and learners learn to learn in a style which almost, by definition, precludes deeper learning. As Marchese notes Swedish studies carried out in the 1970's established that only a small percentage of students went beyond surface learning. These studies have since been replicated around the World: "In 1982, Scotland's Noel Entwhistle replicated these studies with British university students, finding that some 90 percent of the studying going on was of the surface variety. These studies have since been replicated in Canada and Australia, with basically the same findings. To my knowledge, there's been no parallel inquiry in the United States. (One could guess the result.)"
What we should note is that almost all, if not all, of the students on whom these tests were carried out were receiving their education in a face to face setting. They were also based almost entirely on campus based students. Which means that two variables were missing which are of interest to me: online teaching and distance learning. Let me take the second of those first. There is a difference in distance learning. Many Open University students will never set foot inside the University. I don't mean just that they will never visit the HQ in Milton Keynes, but that they will not attend any face to face sessions at all. Prior to the advent of web-based tutorial tools, their orientation to their studies was predominantly through the written word, and via television. Does this mean that deeper learning could not take place?
And, what of those engaged in online learning, either via web-based forums or through a virtual tutorial environment. Can they not engage in 'deeper learning'? As Peter Honey (
2001) points out there are a variety of ways in which learning can take place. These range from risk taking to reflecting on our experiences to reading books to watching and repeating others to formal courses. There seems to be a sense that 'deeper learning' only takes place when a teacher is physically present, so that even their presence mediated by a computer or telephone cannot facilitate deeper learning. But, looking at Honey's list a number of his learning opportunities require only the motivation of the learner. Taking risks, trying something new, reflecting on our experiences seem to me to be at least as likely to support deeper learning as taking a structured course.
So if the problem is in defining learning in the first place, and particularly experiential learning, to use Kolb's (
1984) term, then we cannot be sure that deeper learning takes place in face to face settings. If we look at the conditions required for deeper learning, as listed by Marchese, we need to assess whether there is anything within them that is inherently weighted toward face to face provision. Student independence, choice and active involvement do not suggest an inherent predisposition toward face to face. Independent learning suggests students who are learning from a variety of inputs, including lecturers, books and their own experiences. Perhaps it is true to say that deeper learning takes place when the learner is able to assimilate and synthesise an array of, sometimes conflicting, information.
A well structured learning experience, together with constructive feedback and clear objectives seem to me to be the teacher inputs necessary to aid the facilitation of deeper learning. They might be considered the foundation stone of any good educational experience. That they are as likely to be absent from face to face teaching suggests that they are not related organically to any particular mode of delivery. A teacher who is dedicated would want to structure their learning objectives appropriately and offer constructive feedback aimed at helping learners to improve. This will be no less the case in an online setting than a face to face one.
What we are left with is "an environment that is challenging, supportive and low threat" and this is one place where a case could be made for face to face having an advantage over online. Both can and should be challenging, but if learners (and teachers for that matter) are anxious about the technology then the online experience can appear to be threatening and non-supportive. However, it is not an inherent part of being online that this should be the case and face to face teaching can be no less threatening or lacking in support for individual learners. In other words, I can find no conclusive reasons to assume that deeper learning can only take place in a face to face environment or indeed that in many cases it does so. The evidence seems to suggest that the emphasis on exams, which has grown in recent years, is the problem, rather than the medium used to deliver education.
