This week I've been reading a paper by John Richardson, Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education.
The paper outlines a number of ways of categorising how students and teachers think about learning and teaching.
One classic approach is that of Marton from 1976. He identified three approaches to learning:
- deep, where the student takes an active role and attempts to relate what they are learning to their existing knowledge
- surface, where the student is unreflective and focuses on the facts and details of what they are learning without attempting to synthesise or integrate them
- strategic, where the student concentrates their efforts on passing the exam
In Richardson's paper the distinction between deep and surface is normative, and it is "better" to be engaged in deep rather than surface learning. However, other commentators point out that for some higher education endeavors, the surface approach is probably the most effective. Examples here would be disciplines where there are vast amounts of facts that need to be learned before the student can move on to achieving full disciplinary mastery such as law and medicine (see Atherton's page on deep/surface learning for a summary of this http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm).
I found it interesting to see how the deep/surface distinction mapped onto Sfard's distinction from 1998 between the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor in learning. The acquisition metaphor is the classic view of learning as the "getting" and "having" of knowledge. It is everywhere in our language when we try to talk about learning. The participation metaphor is harder to pin down as it is the less dominant metaphor. It relates to learning as a process, a process of becoming which crucially occurs in relation to others. It is particularly useful when trying to understand learning within communities of practice.

Quadrant diagram: Sfard and Marton
Click the image to load a larger version
Finally, there is a resonance in the distinction "deep" and "surface" - it calls to mind the work of Chomsky around understanding how language is structured (see brief note below). Does this connect at all?
References
Marton, F. (1976) 'What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning.' in N. Entwistle (Ed.) Strategies for research and development in higher education, 8.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) 'Students' approaches to learning and tetachings approaches to teaching in higher education', Educational Psychology, vol.25, no.6, pp.673-680.
Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational Researcher, vol.27, no.2, pp.4–13.
The deep structure of a sentence is the core semantic relations of that sentence (what it means?) whereas the surface structure relates to the particularity of what was said. E.g. the two sentences
- Richardson wrote the paper
- The paper was written by Richardson
So deep and surface are important words that are carrying with them some complex intellectual freight.


















