Abstract
This study analyzed the factors associated with the transition from deep to surface learning among university students through an integrative synthesis of the scientific literature. The identified determinants were organized into three domains: individual, pedagogical-assessment, and contextual, and according to their function as precipitating, mediating, and protective factors. Assessment, workload, and motivation emerged as the most relevant determinants, whereas perceptions of the learning environment and self-regulation helped explain different responses under similar academic conditions. As a theoretical contribution, the study proposes a model that interprets the shift toward surface learning as an adaptive process linked to the perceived relationship between cognitive effort and academic reward, incorporating the concept of a surface-learning threshold. The model provides a basis for future longitudinal research on changes in approaches to learning.
References
[2] F. Marton and R. Säljö, “On qualitative differences in learning: II—Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 115–127, 1976.
[3] J. B. Biggs, D. Kember, and D. Y. P. Leung, “The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 133–149, 2001.
[4] J. Biggs, “What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57–75, 1999.
[5] K. Trigwell and M. Prosser, “Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes,” Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 251–266, 1991.
[6] N. J. Entwistle and H. Tait, “Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments,” Higher Education, vol. 19, pp. 169–194, 1990.
[7] J. F. H. Nijhuis, M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers, “Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–93, 2005.
[8] A. Lizzio, K. Wilson, and R. Simons, “University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 27–52, 2002.
[9] K. Wilson and J. Fowler, “Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 87–101, 2005.
[10] K. Struyven, F. Dochy, S. Janssens, and S. Gielen, “On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 279–294, 2006.
[11] J. F. H. Nijhuis, M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers, “The extent of variability in learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 121–134, 2008.
[12] C. D. Balasooriya, S. Toohey, and C. Hughes, “The cross-over phenomenon: Unexpected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 781–794, 2009.
[13] C. D. Balasooriya, C. S. Hughes, and S. M. Toohey, “Impact of a new integrated medicine program on students’ approaches to learning,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 289–302, 2009.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.