Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore a model of learning that proposes that various learning strategies are powerful at certain stages in the learning cycle. The model describes three inputs and outcomes (skill, will and thrill), success criteria, three phases of learning (surface, deep and transfer) and an acquiring and consolidation phase within each of the surface and deep phases. A synthesis of 228 meta-analyses led to the identification of the most effective strategies. The results indicate that there is a subset of strategies that are effective, but this effectiveness depends on the phase of the model in which they are implemented. Further, it is best not to run separate sessions on learning strategies but to embed the various strategies within the content of the subject, to be clearer about developing both surface and deep learning, and promoting their associated optimal strategies and to teach the skills of transfer of learning. The article concludes with a discussion of questions raised by the model that need further research. There has been a long debate about the purpose of schooling. These debates include claims that schooling is about passing on core notions of humanity and civilisation (or at least one's own society's view of these matters). They include claims that schooling should prepare students to live pragmatically and immediately in their current environment, should prepare students for the work force, should equip students to live independently, to participate in the life of their community, to learn to 'give back', to develop personal growth. 1 In the past 30 years, however, the emphasis in many western systems of education has been more on enhancing academic achievement-in domains such as reading, mathematics, and science-as the primary purpose of schooling. 2 Such an emphasis has led to curricula being increasingly based on achievement in a few privileged domains, and 'great' students are deemed those who attain high levels of proficiency in these narrow domains.This has led to many countries aiming to be in the top echelon of worldwide achievement measures in a narrow range of subjects; for example, achievement measures such as PISA (tests of 15-year olds in mathematics, reading and science, across 65 countries in 2012) or PIRLS (Year-5 tests of mathematics, reading and science, across 57 countries in 2011). Indeed, within most school systems there is a plethora of achievement tests; many countries have introduced accountability pressures based on high levels of testing of achievement; and communities typically value high achievement or levels of knowledge. 3 The mantra underpinning these claims has been cast in terms of what students know and are able to do; the curriculum is compartmentalised into various disciplines of achievement; and students, teachers, parents and policy makers talk in terms of success in these achievement domains.Despite the recent emphasis on achievement, the day-to-day focus of schools has always been on learning-how to know, how to know more efficiently a...

Untitled

“…PST 6 rejected what he/she described as "traditional didactic manner". In this regard PST 6 manifests the view that principles of learning, potentially emphasising facilitation and co-construction (alignment with "teaching pedagogy evidence"), are preferable to a more didactic approach favoured by the author and East Asian educators (e.g., Huang & Leung, 2004;Lai & Murray, 2012;Leung et al, 2015;Li, 2004), meta-data analysts (e.g., Hattie, 2009;Hattie & Donoghue, 2016), and cognitive load theorists (e.g., Chen et al, 2016;Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;Sweller, 2016;Tricot & Sweller, 2014). It needs to be noted, however, that while the views of PST 6 provide a reasonably coherent justification for existing generic mathematics teacher education programs and curriculum courses/subjects, they are counter to those expressed by the majority of the pre-service teachers enrolled in the mathematics course informing this study.…”

Developing Mathematics Learning Strategy Module Based on Journal Review

“…This also accords with our earlier observations, which showed that despite the recent emphasis on achievement, the focus of schools has been on learning procedures and concept, how to know more efficiently and effectively. While students are now ready to learn, it makes teachers should have the skill to enable their "learning sense" and increase the 'how to learn' proficiencies of students (Hattie & Donoghue, 2016). Those top-ten learning models explained elaborately and clearly in this module.…”

Moving towards engaged learning in STEM domains; there is no simple answer, but clearly a road ahead

“…This timing of inquiry, however, seems to be of importance. Hattie and Donoghue (), who performed a meta‐synthesis of a large series of meta‐analyses comprising a total of close to 19,000 individual studies, explicitly mentioned that some more engaged forms of learning and instruction show less favourable effect sizes when they are introduced in the curriculum at a point when the necessary surface knowledge that is needed as a starting point for gaining (deep) conceptual knowledge has not yet been acquired. Schneider and Preckel () also presenting a meta‐synthesis, likewise found that prior instruction (and the associated prior knowledge) is a moderator variable for the effectiveness of engaged forms of learning such as problem‐based learning and inquiry learning.…”