On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I—outcome and Process*

Abstract

Summary. This paper describes an attempt to identify different levels of processing of information among groups of Swedish university students who were asked to read substantial passages of prose. Students were asked questions about the meaning of the passages and also about how they set about reading the passages. This approach allows processes and strategies of learning to be examined, as well as the outcomes in terms of what is understood and remembered. The starting point of this research was that learning has to be described in terms of its content. From this point differences in what is learned, rather than differences in how much is learned, are described. It was found that in each study a number of categories (levels of outcome) containing basically different conceptions of the content of the learning task could be identified. The corresponding differences in level of processing are described in terms of whether the learner is engaged in surface‐level or deep‐level processing.

Assessment drives learning: An unavoidable truth?

“…One of the earliest studies to distinguish students differing approaches to learning was carried out by Marton andSä ljö in 1976 (Marton andSä ljö , 1976). Students were instructed to read a piece of text on which they would later be tested.…”

“…One group of students attempted to understand the meaning of the subject as a whole, identified as a deep learning approach. The other group instead aimed to learn just the facts they believed would be examined-this was described as a surface approach (Marton and Sä ljö , 1976). Ramsden (2003) went on and summarized the key features of each learning style.…”

Framing the Features of Good-Quality Knowledge for Teachers and Students

“…The ideas of levels and depth of processing were quite quickly taken up by other researchers in analyses of the qualities of student learning actions, most notably by Marton (1975), Marton and Säljö (1976a;1976b), Biggs (1979), and colleagues (1979, 2002). Deep learning has been maintained as a synonym for high quality learning and is widely used in discussions of learning in both research literature and in more practical discussions of teaching and learning.…”

“…In each of the accounts of White (1979) and White and Gunstone (1980), Biggs and Collis (1982), Hogan and Fisherkeller (2000), Marton and Säljö (1976a;1976b), Kerr (1981), Chi and Roscoe (2002), and McKeown and Beck (1990), there is explicit concern to make judgments about the correctness of propositions and also the correctness of relationships between propositions. This judgment of correctness, or well-foundedness, is made with respect to the degree of congruence between a person's knowledge and the knowledge of the relevant knowledge community.…”

Integrated problem-based learning versus lectures: a path analysis modelling of the relationships between educational context and learning approaches

“…The concept of learning approaches was initially proposed by Marton and Säljö [1] and later extended [2–4]. These authors defined that students had different intentions when starting a learning task and used different learning processes and strategies to deal with it.…”