1
STUDENT LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO LEARNING AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE TEACHING-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, University of Helsinki, Finland
Keynote address, Antwerpen,October 23, 2008
There is evidence that the teaching-learning environment affects student learning. Students’ perceptions of teaching, assessment demands and criteria, and course content, as well as of the structure within the natural setting of academic departments, influence their learning. Research has shown that positive perceptions of the teaching-learning environment are positively related to the deep approachto learning and negatively related to the surface approach to learning.
Approaches to learning in higher education
Students’ approaches to learning are closely related to their conceptions of learning (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1997; van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). According to Marton et al. (1997), the former materialise the latter in a specific situation. Approaches to learning may be roughly divided into two qualitatively different categories: a surface approach versus a deep approach, the latter being associated with qualitatively better learning (e.g., Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Marton et al., 1997; Richardson, 1994). Surface approach means that a student tries to cope with the course requirements and, therefore, concentrates on routine fact memorisation. Deep approach, on the other hand, is based on an interest in the subject matter of a task, and refers to an intention to maximise understanding (e.g., Biggs, 1993).
An aspect somewhat independent of the above is the strategic approach. This refers to the ways in which students organise their studying in order to do well (Biggs, 1985). Although students with a strategic approach may seek high grades by any means, be that a surface or a deep approach, there is empirical evidence suggesting that it is more useful to combine the strategic approach with the deep rather than the surface approach, as far as success in various domains is concerned (e.g., Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1996). More recently, the strategic approach has also been referred to as organised studying and effort management (Entwistle & McCune, 2004). According to Biggs (1993), only the deep approach may be called a natural approach. Surface and strategic approaches are institutional creations, shifting the focus from the task itself to ways of maximising the rewards and minimising the sanctions associated with successful or unsuccessful completion of it.
Our recent study interestingly showed that in a large multidisciplinary sample of Finnish Bachelor studentsthe deep approach was divided into two dimensions: aiming at understanding (i.e., the “traditional deep approach”), and analytical and argumentative (i.e., scientific) approach (Parpala, Lindblom-Ylänne, Litmanen, Hirsto & Komulainen, 2008, submitted). There may be several reasons for this, but one is the fact that the University of Helsinki is a highly research-intensive university with a strong emphasis on researcher education (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2006). Thus, students need to develop their analytical and argumentative skills from the very beginning of their studies. These skills are also emphasised in the highly demanding entrance examinations in every discipline.
Frictions that arise between the student and the teaching-learning environment
Students’ approaches to learning and their study practices in general are not always in line with the teacher’s approach to teaching, assessment practices and demands of the learning environment (e.g., Vermunt Verloop,1999). Congruence occurs when students’ learning and teachers’ teaching strategies are compatible. Friction occurs when there is a conflict between learning and teaching strategies. Vermunt and Verloop (1999) divide friction into two categories. Constructive friction represents a challenge for students to increase their use of the learning or thinking strategies necessary for them to develop as learners. Thus, the learning environment stimulates them to develop thinking and learning activities which they would not be inclined to use on their own. Constructive friction, therefore, resembles Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (1962; 1978), because both emphasise the importance of concentrating on the ‘buds’ of development rather than on its ‘fruits’ of development, in other words on the process of becoming an expert learner. The following example of constructive friction shows how a student expresses problems finding adequate study strategies. This student had been particularlyfrustrated at the beginning of her studies but she has changed her study strategies from a surface approach towards deep approach and self-regulatedlearning (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1999):
There is a conflict between study habits and exams. The goal is to pass theexam. It should rather be to do your work as well as you can and to understand.Earlier I learned more by heart, now I study more for my future occupation, formy own sake, and my motivation has been aroused. (5th year medical student)
Destructive friction, on the other hand, may cause a decrease in learning or thinking skills. Students may not be able to use their existing, or potential skills are not developed. The following interview extract shows a strong destructive friction between a student and her learning environment. This student felt that destructive friction had severely disturbed her studies(Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1999):
I’m enormously disappointed with this organization, this has not suited mein any way. The way we learn and study has been very difficult for me, really.I could even say that this faculty hinders studying, this is the simple truth.… Welearn by heart, studying is very school-like. There aren’t any discussions aboutinteresting subjects after lectures… we don’t go anywhere to talk about unclear
things. There isn’t any sense in the way they teach us… The study methods havebeen very difficult for me, enormously difficult… The content is not difficult,only the way we study. This system has been very difficult for me… There isthis conflict… if I had my own goals, I couldn’t achieve them in this system,because the conflict is huge… You’re better to adapt to the system’s goals, i.e.,pass the exams and other things… At least I haven’t got the strength to wonderif I will become a good physician after learning this and this… I buried my own goals a long time ago. (5th year medical student)
Study orchestrations as individual combinations of different aspects of learning
The study orchestration concept was introduced at the beginning of the 1990s by Meyer who defines the concept as a ’conceptualised study approach adopted by individual students or groups of students’ (1991, p. 297). This concept recognises three important aspects of student learning: the existence of qualitative individual differences in the manner in which students approach and engage in learning tasks, the influence of the teaching-learning environment on such engagement, and differing conceptions of learning among individual students (Meyer, 1991). The verb orchestrate captures very well the current emphasis on the learner’s own activity. It describes the different ways students are directing their resources in a specific learning context. The term study orchestration is an action concept rather than an inanimate label. Further, the term orchestration is a functional tool for examining student learning because it is precisely defined and embraces an implicit element of regulation in studying.A comparison of the concepts approaches to learning and study orchestrationshows that approaches to learning depend on the context, the content and the demands of the learning task (Marton & Säljö, 1976), but they describe a more specific component of learning than study orchestration.
Figure 1. An example of a coherent study orchestration (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2003)[1]
In general, a study orchestration is expected to exhibit a considerable degree of conceptual coherence or consonance. This means that it should be recognisable and interpretable in terms of our emerging understanding of how students vary in their conceptualisation and engagement of learning (Meyer, 2000). Figure 1 shows an example of a coherent study orchestration. This profile may be described as a good profile. There is an extremely clear difference between the mean scores of the surface scales and those of the deep scales. This student scored highly on all the deep scores, and highest on memorising with understanding (MWU). Furthermore, the student scored low on all the surface scores, including repetition aidsunderstanding (RAU). During an interview, this student analysed his inventory results (RoLI, Reflections of Learning Inventory; Meyer, 2000) in the following way:
This looks fine! I don’t like to read the text many times. It was only when I studied for the entrance examination that I read the books many times. When I study for examinations, I don’t have time to read many times. For me it’s very good that I’m able to study in different kinds of learning environments. I’m able to change my study strategies according to the demands of the learning environment. In the army, I often wondered why I didn’t remember the things they taught me. Their way of teaching wasn’t the right way. We had to study minor details, which weren’t related to anything. Of course, I’m able to learn individual facts by heart, but it’s not motivating or wise. (Student no. 43, a second-year male student) (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2003)
However, study orchestration may also involve degrees of conceptual incoherence or dissonance. This means that the expected theoretically coherent linkages between some or all of the more common sources of explanatory variation in contextualised learning behaviour fail to appear in a readily recognisable and interpretable form (Meyer, 2000).
Figure 2. An example of a dissonant study orchestration (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2003)[2]
The example in Figure 2 represents the dissonant study orchestration. This profile contains high scores on both the surface and deep scales. This student scores high on deep scales such as thinking independently (IND) and memorising with understanding (MWU) and, further, high on surfacescales, such as memorising as rehearsal (MAR) and memorising before understanding (MBU). In the interview, this student expressed difficulties in developing a new method of study. However, the student seemed to be aware that his current way of studying was not efficientfor university studies:
I should have developed another kind of study strategy in high school already. I shouldn’t repeat things so many times. I should be able to read only once and stillremember. I’m used to repetition. I should think more about the idea of the textwhen reading. Now at the Faculty of Law, I have tried to keep a list of concepts inmy mind when reading a book. I hope this helps me. I should develop a way ofstudying in which reading once is enough. I got used to reading the material manytimes in high school. I should have done it differently then. Even my school friendstold me that you don’t have to read the material many times. (Student no. 40, afirst-year male student) (Lindblom-Ylänne, 2003)
Dissonance is an extremely interesting phenomenon because, in addition to pointing out theoretically atypical combinations of different approaches to learning, it reflects problematic relationships between individual students and their learning environments, particularly their perceptions of their environments.
Meyer and colleagues have showed that study orchestrations of at risk students were dominated by learning style pathologies (Meyer, Parsons & Dunne, 1990a; Entwistle et al., 1991), and that different orchestrations were also respectively related to different degrees of study success (Meyer et al., 1990a; 1990b). According to Meyer et al. (1990a), meaning orchestration was related to academic success, whereas its absence, or dissonant orchestration, was associated with academic failure.
Lonka and Lindblom-Ylänne (1995) found that students who did not adapt to the learning environment were able to maintain their coherent way of studying despite the constant mismatch between the learner’s learning practices and the teacher’s teaching practices. This was the case with advanced medical students expressing a coherent meaning orchestration. They were the most successful in their studies, even though their orchestrations were not supported by the teaching practices in the traditional medical curriculum.Thus, the students who expressed coherent study orchestrations seem to be ‘immune’ to the demands of the learning environment (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1999; 2000; Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1995).
However, dissonance is not related to any particular study orientation, but is rather developed through interaction between students’ study orientation and factors such as their learning experiences and regulatory skills, and the learning environment (Lindblom-Ylänne, 1999). Lindblom-Ylänne and Lonka (1999) analysed the dissonance of advanced medical students’ study orchestrations. It appeared that the learning environment in medical school forced these students to study in a way not typical of them. The dissonant study orchestrations seemed to be a result of the conflict between the requirements of the learning environment and the students’ individual study practices. As Boekaerts (1997) pointed out, the goals that teachers set may not be congruent with those generated and defined by the students. This confusion may express either constructive or destructive friction (Vermunt, 1996) in the perception of the learning environment.
The results of Lindblom-Ylänne and Lonka (1999) showed that half of the medical students expressing dissonant orchestrations had problems with their study practices. They also lacked the metacognitive skills to evaluate their study practices and quality of learning.On the other hand, the other half of the medical students expressing dissonant study orchestrations had noticed a change in their study practices during their studies. These students applied good study strategies and practices, which were ‘broken down’ because of the destructive friction between these students and their traditional learning environment. Thus, the analyses of the individual ways in which advanced medical students orchestrated their studying indicated that a conflict between students’ own goals and those of their learning environment somehow broke down the regulation activities that they were used to. Despite these students’ ability to use metacognitive regulation activities, they were unable to regulate their studies. It seemed that, as their studies proceeded, these students were no longer sure who was responsible for the regulation: themselves as self-regulated learners or the curriculum teachers as external regulators. This implies that high-achieving medical students expressing a dissonant orchestration may not lack regulation abilities. It is rather a case of the externally regulated learning environment forcing students to change their study practices and to adopt a more externally regulated learning style, a process which seemed to lead to the development of a dissonant orchestration. Active and self-regulated students may not be satisfied with their studying in the traditional learning environment. Severe conflicts seem to arise, because the demands of the learning environment and the students' personal goals are not congruent.
Lindblom-Ylänne (2003) analysed study orchestrations of law students and showed that there were clear differences among the study orchestrations of law students in terms of coherence and dissonance. Students’ study orchestrations varied from clearly coherent to clearly dissonant. Between these two ‘extremes of the continuum’, there were students whose study orchestrations were diagnosed as slightly dissonant or unclear. Even though these orchestrations were not severely dissonant, they reflected problems in the students’ study practices and frictions in relation to their learning environment. Many students who were expressing slightly dissonant study orchestrations group reported that their learning environment forced them to study more superficially than they would normally do. This reflects a destructive friction between the students and their learning environment. The study by Lindblom-Ylänne (2003) also confirmed the earlier findings by Lindblom-Ylänne and Lonka (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1999; 2000; Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne, 1995) by showing thatlaw students who expressed coherent study orchestrations were ‘immune’ to the demands of the learning environment and continued to search for meaning even when they studied materials that consisted a great deal of facts.
In my opinion, research on study orchestrations of university students is the most fruitful at an individual level, even though it is also possible to look at study orchestrations of groups of students. Furthermore, research on dissonant study orchestrations at the individual level is particularly valuable because it deepens our understanding of problems related to the relationship between the student and the learning environment, and to low academic achievement and even to the failing of courses. The results can be applied in study counselling and in this way enhance the quality of student learning at university.
Students’ perceptions of their teaching-learning environments
There is evidence that the teaching-learning environment affects student learning. Students’ perceptions of teaching, assessment and course content, as well as of the structure within the natural setting of academic departments, influence their learning. Assessment has an important role in determining what and how students learn. According to Biggs (2003) good teaching is based on constructive alignment, whichrefers to teaching where the objectives are appropriate and clear to the students, and the teaching methods and assessment tasks support students to engage in learning activities in order to gain the desired skills and understanding.Teaching, learning and assessment are strongly related and their alignment has always been crucial for achieving the expected learning outcomes. Inappropriate assessment and a heavy workload have been shown to push students toward a surface approach to learning. In addition, excessive workload has been shown to hinder the development of individual interest (Mikkonen, Ruohoniemi & Lindblom-Ylänne (2008, submitted).Their study showed that most of the interviewed veterinary students experienced the heavy workload as frustrating and pressuring. According to the students, the heavy workload did not give enough time and opportunity to concentrate on their own areas of interest. One of the students even doubted aloud whether her interest had disappeared altogether:
Now and then it is horrible and it is also scary that does this not interest me after all, or sometimes I feel like it. But I don’t know why I feel so, maybe it is because there is no time to bury in any subject when the timetable keeps you read fast and makes you try to take in all that you should read. (3rd-year veterinary student)
Perceptions of good teaching influence students to move toward a deep approach to learning (Lizzio, Wilson & Simons, 2002). Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, and Orr (2000) emphasise the role of teaching in supporting high-quality learning. According to them, good teaching can be defined as an extended awareness of the relationship between learning and teaching. There is a relationship between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning (Kember & Gow, 1994; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). In particular, there is evidence that student-centred teachers seem to support their students to adopt a deep approach to learning(Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse, 1999).