Do Students Develop Towards More Deep Approaches to Learning During Studies? A Systematic Review on the Development of Students’ Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning in Higher Education

Abstract

The focus of the present paper is on the contribution of the research in the student approaches to learning tradition. Several studies in this field have started from the assumption that students’ approaches to learning develop towards more deep approaches to learning in higher education. This paper reports on a systematic review of longitudinal research on how students’ approaches to learning develop during higher education. A total of 43 studies were included in the review. The results give an unclear picture of the development of approaches to learning and, thus, do not provide clear empirical evidence for the assumption that students develop towards more deep approaches during higher education. Neither methodological nor conceptual aspects of the studies investigated explained the ambiguity of the research results. Both theoretical and empirical implications for further research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

Articles included in the review are marked with *

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asikainen, H. (2014). Successful learning and studying in biosciences: exploring how students conceptions of learning, approaches to learning, motivation and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment are related to study success. Doctoral dissertation. Available from E-thesis.

  3. *Asikainen, H., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Vanthournout, G., & Coertjens, L. (2014). The development of approaches to learning and perceptions of the teaching-learning environment during bachelor level studies and their relation to study success. Higher Education Studies, 4(4), 24–36. DOI: 10.5539/hes.v4n4p24.

  4. Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a literature review in health and social care: a practical guide (3rd, [updated] ed ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. *Ballantine, J. A., Duff, A., & McCourt Larres, P. (2008). Accounting and business students’ approaches to learning: a longitudinal study. Journal of Accounting Education, 26(4), 188–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2009.03.001.

  7. Barnett, A., Van der Pols, J., & Dobson, A. (2005). Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 215–220. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266–279. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. *Biggs, J. B., & Rihn, B. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to learning. In J. R. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance (pp. 279–293). New York: Academic Press.

  12. *Boulton-Lewis, G., Marton, F., Lewis, D. C., & Wilss, L. A. (2004). A longitudinal study of learning for a group of indigenous Australian university students: dissonant conceptions and strategies. Higher Education, 47(1), 91–111. DOI:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009807.00392.33.

  13. Catrysse, L., Gijbels, D., Doche, V., De Maeyer, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Gommers, L. (2016). Mapping processing strategies in learning from expository text: an exploratory eye tracking study followed by a cued recall. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1). doi:10.14786/flr.v4i1.192.

  14. *Chan, B., & Tang, W. (2006). Evaluating the impact of university teaching on approaches to learning of first-year hospitality students. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(1), 41–59. DOI:10.1300/J172v06n01_03.

  15. *Chen, Y., Henning, M., Yielder, J., Jones, R., Wearn, A., & Weller, J. (2015). Progress testing in the medical curriculum: students’ approaches to learning and perceived stress. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0426-y.

  16. *Cleveland-Innes, M., & Emes, C. (2005). Social and academic interaction in higher education contexts and the effect on deep learning. NASPA Journal, 42(2), 241–262. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1475.

  17. Coffield, F. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dahlgren, L. O. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of content-oriented guidance. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

    Google Scholar 

  19. * De Clercq, M., Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (2013). Chicken or the egg: longitudinal analysis of the causal dilemma between goal orientation, self-regulation and cognitive processing strategies in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 4–13. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.003.

  20. Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: what it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 499–567. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolmans, D., Loyens, S., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Science Education, 21(5), 1087–1112. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. *Edmunds, R., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 295–309. DOI: 10.1348/000709908X368866.

  23. *English, L., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Encouraging a deep approach to learning through curriculum design. Accounting Education, 13(4), 461–488. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306828.

  24. Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22(3), 201–204. doi:10.1007/BF00132287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325–345. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Entwistle, N., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407–428. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching-learning environments: measuring students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: unravelling basic components and dimensions (1st ed., p. 89). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  30. *Fryer, L. (2016). (Latent) transitions to learning at university: a latent profile transition analysis of first-year Japanese students. Higher Education, doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0094-9.

  31. *Geitz, G., Brinke, D. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2016). Changing learning behaviour: self-efficacy and goal orientation in PBL groups in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 146–158. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.001.

  32. *Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Struyf, E., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). Changing students’ approaches to learning: a two-year study within a university teacher training course. Educational Studies, 35(5), 503–513. doi: 10.1080/03055690902879184.

  33. *Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483. DOI: 10.1348/00070990260377488.

  34. Gustavson, K., von Soest, T., Karevold, E., & Røysamb, E. (2012). Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 918. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104. doi:10.1080/0141192032000057401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. *Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489–505. doi:10.1080/0963928042000306837.

  37. *Iputo, J. E. (1999). Impact of the problem-based learning curriculum on the learning styles and strategies of medical students at the University of Transkei. South African Medical Journal = Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde, 89(5), 550–554.

  38. *Jackling, B. (2005). Analysis of the learning context, perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning accounting: a longitudinal study. Accounting and Finance, 45, 597–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2005.00142.x.

  39. Lake, W., & Boyd, W. (2015). Is the university system in Australia producing deep thinkers? Australian Universitie's Review, 57(2), 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  40. *Lietz, P., & Matthews, B. (2010). The effects of college students’ personal values on changes in learning approaches. Research in Higher Education, 51(1), 65–87. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9147-6.

  41. *Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2013). Challenges in analysing change in students’ approaches to learning. In D. Gijbels, V. Doche, J. Richardson & J. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education. Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 232–248). New York: Routledge.

  42. Lonka, K., Olkinuora, E., & Mäkinen, J. (2004). Aspects and prospects of measuring studying and learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 301–323. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0002-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. *López, B., Esteban, P., Matero, P., Irene, P., & Rodríguez, M. (2015). Métodos centrados en el aprendizaje, estrategias y enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios = learning-centered methods, learning strategies and learning approaches in university students. Revista De Educación, 370, 229–254. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-370-304.

  44. Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: 1. Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16(1), 273–279. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1975.tb00193.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 (pp. 32–43). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning II: outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), Experience of learning (pp. 39–58). Edinburg: Scottish academic press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. *Matthews, B. (2004). An examination of changes in the approaches to learning in a sample of sojourner students from Confucian heritage cultures (CHC) over time in a new academic environment using hierarchical linear modelling. APERA Conference 2006 28–30 November, Hong Kong.

  50. McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2011). Cultivating the disposition to understand in 21st century university education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 303–310.

  51. *Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: instruction designed to change students’ beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213–225. doi: 10.1037/a0029690.

  52. *Nieminen, J., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Lonka, K. (2004). The development of study orientations and study success in students of pharmacy. Instructional Science, 32(5), 387–417. DOI: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000044642.35553.e5.

  53. *Ova, E., Bloomfield, L., & Rotem, A. (2012). Measuring students’ approaches to learning in different clinical rotations. BMC Medical Education, 2(114). DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-114.

  54. Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269–282. doi:10.1348/000709909X476946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128–148. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02305.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. *Phan, H. P. (2011a). Deep processing strategies and critical thinking: developmental trajectories using latent growth analyses. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 283–294. doi:10.1080/00220671003739382.

  57. *Phan, H. P. (2011b). Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: a developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 225–246. doi:10.1080/01443410.2010.545050.

  58. *Phan, H. P. (2013). Theoretical constructs that explain and enhance learning: a longitudinal examination. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 1007–1021. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.806445

  59. *Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Parpala, A. (2014). Explaining university students’ strong commitment to understand through individual and contextual elements. Frontline Learning Research, 2(1), 31–49. DOI: 10.14786/flr.v2i1.63.

  60. *Postareff, L., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Factors contributing to changes in a deep approach to learning in different learning environments. Learning Environments Research,, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9186-1.

  61. Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 283–305. doi:10.1348/000709909X480563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  63. *Quinnell, R., May, E., & Peat, M. (2012). Conceptions of  biology and approaches to learning of first year biology students: introducing a technique for tracking changes in learner profiles over time. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1053–1074. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.582653.

  64. Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education [second edition] (pp. 198–217). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

  65. Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching student learning: approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 7–27. doi:10.1080/0141192052000310001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Richardson, J. T. E. (2006). Investigating the relationship between variations in students’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behaviour in distance education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 867–893. doi:10.1348/000709905X69690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 288–293. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). Research issues in evaluating learning pattern development in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 66–70. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Richardson, J. T. E. (2015). Approaches to learning or levels of processing: what did Marton and Säljö (1976a) really say? The legacy of the work of the Göteborg group in the 1970s. Interchange, 46(3), 239–269. doi:10.1007/s10780-015-9251-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. *Rodriguez, L., & Cano, F. (2007). The learning approaches and epistemological beliefs of university students: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 647–667. doi:10.1080/03075070701573807.

  72. *Saravanamuthu, K., & Yap, C. (2014). Pedagogy to empower Chinese learners to adapt to western learning circumstances: a longitudinal case-study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 361–384. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.914154.

  73. Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.). (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.

  74. Singer, J., & Willett, J. (Eds.). (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. *Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: III—study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233–243. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1977.tb02352.x.

  76. Vanthournout, G., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). Further understanding learning in higher education: a systematic review on longitudinal research using Vermunt’s learning pattern model. In S. Rayner & E. Cools (Eds.), Style differences in cognition, learning, and management. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Vanthournout, G., Coertjens, L., Gijbels, D., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Assessing students’ development in learning approaches according to initial learning profiles: a person-oriented perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 33–40. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Vanthournout, G., Doche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). (Dis)similarities in research on learning approaches and learning patterns. In D. Gijbels, V. Doche, J. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 11–32). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Vermunt, J. D. (1994). Inventory of learning styles in higher education. Leiden University, The Netherlands: ICLON Graduate School of Education.

  80. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning. Higher Education, 31(1), 25. doi:10.1007/BF00129106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Vermunt, J., & Vermetten, Y. (2004). Patterns in student learning: relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0005-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. *Volet, S. E., Renshaw, P. D., & Tietzel, K. (1994). A short-term longitudinal investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs’ SPQ questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(2), 301–318. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1994.tb01104.x.

  83. *Vu, N. V., Van, D. V., & Lacombe, G. (1998). Thinking about student thinking: medical students’ learning processes: a comparative and longitudinal study. Academic Medicine, 73(10) cannot find doi.

  84. *Walker, R., Spronken-Smith, R., Bond, C., McDonald, F., Reynolds, J., & McMartin, A. (2010). The impact of curriculum change on health sciences first year students’ approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 38(6), 707–722. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9092-y.

  85. *Ward, P. J. (2011). First year medical students’ approaches to study and their outcomes in a gross anatomy course. Clinical Anatomy, 24(1), 120–127. doi:10.1002/ca.21071.

  86. *Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4(2), 127–15. cannot find doi.

  87. Watkins, D., & Ismail, M. (1994). Is the Asian learner a rote learner? A Malaysian perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 483–488. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (1988). Learning and study strategies. New York: Academic Press.

  89. *Wilding, J., & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an undergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 171–182. DOI: 10.1348/000709904X24726.

  90. Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101. doi:10.1080/0260293042003251770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. *Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: a longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol, 71 doi:10.1348/000709901158424.

  92. Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: a path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 35-56. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168487

  93. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2009). A cross-cultural study of online collaborative learning. Multicultural Ed & Tech Jnl, 3(1), 33–46. doi:10.1108/17504970910951138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henna Asikainen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asikainen, H., Gijbels, D. Do Students Develop Towards More Deep Approaches to Learning During Studies? A Systematic Review on the Development of Students’ Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning in Higher Education. Educ Psychol Rev 29, 205–234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9406-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Approaches to learning
  • Higher education
  • Development on approaches to learning
  • Systematic review
  • Longitudinal studies