Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 469–494 | Cite as

The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes

  • Thomas F. Nelson LairdEmail author
  • Rick Shoup
  • George D. Kuh
  • Michael J. Schwarz
Article

Abstract

“Deep learning” represents student engagement in approaches to learning that emphasize integration, synthesis, and reflection. Because learning is a shared responsibility between students and faculty, it is important to determine whether faculty members emphasize deep approaches to learning and to assess how much students employ these approaches. This study examines the effect of discipline on student use of and faculty members’ emphasis on deep approaches to learning as well as on the relationships between deep approaches to learning and selected educational outcomes. Using data from over 80,000 seniors and 10,000 faculty members we found that deep approaches to learning were more prevalent in Biglan’s soft, pure, and life fields compared to their counterparts. The differences were largest between soft and hard fields. We also found that seniors who engage more frequently in deep learning behaviors report greater educational gains, higher grades, and greater satisfaction with college, and that the strength of these relationships is relatively consistent across disciplinary categories.

Keywords

Deep learning Discipline College seniors Faculty 

References

  1. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Beatie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dicotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001) Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185–228). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Biglan, A. (1973a) The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biglan, A. (1973b) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 1204–1213.Google Scholar
  11. Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  13. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. Smart & W. J. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of research and theory, XI (pp. 1–46). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Braxton, J. M., & Nordvall, R. C. (1985). Selective liberal arts colleges: Higher quality as well as higher prestige? Journal of Higher Education, 5, 538–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for food practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  21. Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
  22. Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Higher Education, 42(3), 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1), 118–130.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, J., & Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep learning: A preliminary investigation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  26. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66.Google Scholar
  27. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.Google Scholar
  28. Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24–31.Google Scholar
  29. Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (1994) Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of Higher Education, 65, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malaney, G. D. (1986). Differentiation in graduate education. Research in Higher Education, 25(1), 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcomes. Higher Education, 20, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  35. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2001). Improving the college experience: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  36. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2002). From promise to progress: How colleges and universities are using student engagement results to improve collegiate quality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  37. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2003). Converting data into action: Expanding the boundaries of institutional improvement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  38. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  39. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  40. Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006, May). Measuring deep approaches to learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  41. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newble, D., & Clarke, R. M. (1985). The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in innovative problem-based medical school. Medical Education, 20, 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsen, D., Kuh, G. D., Schilling, K. M., Schilling, K., Connolly, M., Simmons, A., & Vesper, N. (1998, November). Great expectations: What first-year students say they will do and what they actually do. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  44. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The “how” and “what” of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  47. Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.Google Scholar
  48. Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 17, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995) Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 49–57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  54. Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whelan, G. (1988). Improving medical students’ clinical problem-solving. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 199–214). London, England: Korgan Page.Google Scholar
  56. Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., & Wright, H. M. (2000). Approaches to learning and learning environments in problem-based versus lecture-based learning. In Proceedings of the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  57. Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeegers, P., & Martin, L. (2001). A learning-to-learn program in a first-year chemistry class. Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas F. Nelson Laird
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rick Shoup
    • 1
  • George D. Kuh
    • 1
  • Michael J. Schwarz
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Postsecondary ResearchIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Las Positas CollegeLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations