Deep vs. Surface Learning: A Study Among DTP3 Thermodynamics Students in Politeknik Kuching Sarawak
Bong Nee Mel1*
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Politeknik Kuching Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 February 2021 | Published: 1 March 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study explores the learning approaches (deep or surface learning) of Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) students of DTP3 in studying Thermodynamics. The pattern of correlation between types of learning approaches with academic attainment also to be examined. In addition, this study also tries to prove that the students’ learning approach and academic understanding is influenced by the educators’ pedagogy choices. The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) was conducted to respondents. The findings of this study showed that deep learning approach was the most dominant learning approach used by the students. Then, the findings also showed that the deep learning approach had positive correlation with academic attainment while the surface learning approach was inversely proportional with academic attainment. Therefore, students are encouraging to become a deep learner rather than surface learner. Furthermore, this study also revealed that the significant of educators to teach awareness to the students on the different approaches in their learning. Thus, by promoting or inducing the deep learning approach among students, it is hope that the surface approach to learning can be minimized. Educators also need to be aware that their teaching practices can affect the intention of the students to learning too. The implementation of Outcome Based Education (OBE) in polytechnic’s studies requires students to achieve the goals (outcomes) by means of deep and thorough understanding and mastering of the subjects they study. Thus, the cultivation of deep approach to learning among students may parallel to the concept of OBE.
Keywords: deep learning approach, surface learning approach, academic attainment _________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
The need for students and educators to know and implement the learning approaches during teaching and learning process is very essential. The approaches to learning used by the learners illustrate how they are learning and what they gain from learning. According to Biggs (1999), there are two fundamental learning process namely deep learning and surface learning. Thus, the purpose of this study is to see what types of learning approaches the students dominant to use and reveal any correlation between the learning approaches with the student’s academic attainment. This is an experimental study scoped and limited to Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) students of DTP3 Session of June 2019, who studied Thermodynamics taught by author. The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) developed by and sourced from Biggs et. al. (2001) was used in this study.
2. Literature Review
Recently, the basic distinction in learning approach is between a deep and surface learning.
According to Biggs (1999), the deep learning is a committed approach to learning where the learner uses higher-order cognitive skills to master academic content, work collaboratively and think and interact critically and actively with the content being learned. Sagar Khillar (2020) also defined the deep learning approach encourages learners to think critically, understand meaning and can apply what they learn to new situations and contexts. In addition, Weimer (2012) also stated that the essence of deep learning is understanding—true knowing.
However, for surface learning, learners tend to avoid the hard work and instead rely on single sources of information, and as a result, they learn only what is required but nothing more (Biggs, 1999). Furthermore, the surface learning is a rather passive approach to learning where students scraping the surface of the material being studied and concentrating only on the assessment requirements without getting into the details, with the only intention of passing the exams or test (Sagar Khillar, 2020). Meanwhile, Jackson (2012) also stated that a student using a surface approach only intended to capture contents in total, rather than understand it thoroughly.
The surface approach is totally in distinction with the deep approach. Therefore, it is important for the educators to understand the different ways how the students learn and interpret.
Understanding the learner types among our students is very important in helping and guiding them in their more meaningful learning process. This is because of the learning approaches will influence the academic attainment.
There are researchers who try to find the correlation between the learning approaches and the students’ academic performance. Zaza Eliza Mohd Redza et. al. (2013) in their research found that majority students, both male and female groups preferred to use deep approach in studying Business Ethics. This research also revealed there were significant positive relationships between deep learning approach and academic performance. On the other hand, there was a significant negative relationship between the surface learning approach and the academic result. This study provided guidance to educators to adopt effective teaching strategies to improve student’s learning by encouraging the right approaches for learning to improve students’ academic performance.
Hanin Naziha Hasnor et. al. (2013) with their study to examine the relationship of different learning approaches on students’ academic attainment among the American Programme students at International Education College (INTEC), UiTM Shah Alam. The findings showed that students were more likely to use deep approach in their study. Besides, it also revealed that the surface approach was inversely to the academic achievement. However, the deep approach showed almost negligible relationship with academic achievement.
Herrmann et. al. (2017) with their study on Danish University students stated that by controlling for the effects of age, gender, and progression, the students’ end-of-semester grade point averages were related negatively to a surface approach and positive but weak correlation to a deep approach. In addition, Mayya et. al. (2004) in their study on undergraduate students of physiotherapy, College of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal also found that academic performance had negative correlation with the surface approach while positive, but weak correlation to a deep approach.
The surface learning approach shows negative correlation with academic achievement indicating that the more the students use it in their studies, the lower their academic attainment would be. In contrast, the deep learning approach shows positive but somehow quite weak correlation to academic achievement in previous studies. This means the deep learning approach is parallel to the attainment even with weak strength of correlation. Therefore, the educator should discourage surface approach to learning and helping students to employ the deep approach to learning.
3. Methodology
This study was a descriptive survey. The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R- SPQ-2F) was used to gather information related to the objectives of the study. The respondents were drawn from the Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) students of DTP3 Session of June 2019, who studied Thermodynamics and taught by the author.
Figure 1 illustrates the flow process of this experimental study. The R-SPQ-2F was given to the students at the very first session of teaching and learning process to recognize the type of learners the students belonged to. Then, in the next session, the instructor did an experimental study to the students with teaching on calculation for the subject of thermodynamic. Instructor only taught the material presented on notes without explained the overview or general concept of the topic, and also shown the simple direct calculation (known as pattern ABC) to the students. Instructor allowed students to learn passively in the class. Question pattern ABC means the students usually been given the data A in question and need to determine the answer for sub-question B and C respectively.
After this process, the instructor gave a short pre-test (solving problem of calculation) to the students, but this problem required thorough understandings and ideas to be used together. This was not the direct solving calculation with question pattern of BAC. In this pattern, the data given in question was B, but students had to determine the previous value of A first before they could answer for sub-question C. The score from this short test was collected and analysed to see the mean scores of the deep learners and surface learners for pre-phased study.
The study was continued with the instructor gave a learning approach talk to the students known as learning enhancement process. The purpose of given this talk to students was to let them know the differences between these two learning styles and its implications to the attainment. Instructor also encouraged students to become a deep learner. Then, the instructor taught the same topic again with more explanations, overview of the topic, keywords and detail or complete calculations. The aim was to engage students in the active learning (deep learning).
After a couple of weeks later, the R-SPQ-2F was conducted once again to the students. The purpose here was to investigate whether the number of surface or deep learners (students) in the class changed. Then, the instructor gave another short post-test (solving problem of calculation) to the students with question pattern of BAC+. In this short test, the question level was a bit higher that not only needed the students to determine answers in reverse way but maybe asking students to locate the data in a simple sketch. The score from this short test was collected and analysed to see the mean scores of the deep learners and surface learners for post- phased study.
The pre- and post-phased mean scores was compared according to the learning approaches to see any significant improvement gained through this experimental study. The correlation
between these two learning approaches with the academic attainment was also examined with Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, r.
Figure 1: The flow process of this experimental study.
The hypothesis for testing in this study were as below:
(a) Null hypothesis, Ho: No significant correlation between surface learning approach with the academic attainment.
Alternative hypothesis, Ha: There is a significant correlation between surface learning approach with the academic attainment.
(b) Null hypothesis, Ho: No significant correlation between deep learning approach with the academic attainment.
Alternative hypothesis, Ha: There is a significant correlation between deep learning approach with the academic attainment.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
There were 24 students in DTP3, Diploma of Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) Session of June 2019 that was taught by author. They became the experimental group in this study.
Table 1 showed the data on the types of learning approaches used among students of DTP3 in early semester. The findings showed that most of the students used deep approach (mean = 3.2083, standard deviation= 0.39773) and followed by the surface approach (mean = 3.1625, standard deviation= 0.54598). It could be inferred from the findings that most of the students had the intention to understand what they were studying (deep approach), and they wanted to achieve the good scores in this subject. From Table 1, the findings also showed that the mean scored by the surface learners and deep learners in their pre-test were varied. The surface
learners managed to score with a lower mean of 2.4545 points while the deep learners managed to score higher with the mean of 8.3846 points.
Table 1: Learning approaches among students of DTP3, Diploma of Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) session of June 2019 in early semester with pre-test mean scores Students’ Learning
Approaches
n and % Mean Std. Deviation Mean Score in Pre-test
Surface Approach 11 (45.83%) 3.1625 0.54598 2.4545
Deep Approach 13 (54.17%) 3.2083 0.39773 8.3846
Table 2 showed the data on the types of learning approaches used among students of DTP3 after learning enhancement process (a special talk related to learning approach, changing of teaching method to promote deep learning, engaging active learning, etc.). The findings showed that the number of students used deep approach was increased (from n=13 to n=17) and followed by the decreased number of students with surface approach (from n=11 to n=7).
It could be inferred from the findings that most of the students had acknowledged the significant of using deep learning approach in their study. Therefore, the number of deep learners in DTP3 was increased. The findings also showed that the mean scored by the surface learners and deep learners in their post-test were varied. The group of surface learners managed to increase the mean score with a mean of 6.7143 points because they managed to understand the course contents with deep teaching environment created even, they still belonged to the surface learners. At the same time, the group of deep learners managed to score even higher with the mean of 9.5294 points in their post-test. The mean scores of post-test for deep learners was significantly increased indicated that they more understood and mastered the engineering subject after the learning enhancement process was implemented in class. Therefore, the educator plays an important role to recognise the type of learners in early semester and if possible, the educator should cultivate the deep learning climate among the students to parallel the students study effort with their academic attainment. The rational of doing this due to the deep learning approach is directly proportional to the academic attainment.
Table 2: Learning approaches among students of DTP3, Diploma of Mechanical Engineering (Manufacturing) session of June 2019 after learning enhancement process with post-test mean scores
Students’ Learning Approaches
n and % Mean Std. Deviation Mean Score in Post-test
Surface Approach 7 (29.17%) 3.2542 0.42629 6.7143
Deep Approach 17 (70.83%) 3.5000 0.41703 9.5294
Table 3 presented the correlation between students’ learning approaches on academic achievement. By using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation to determine the strength of the relationship between the independent variables and academic achievement (continuous assessment scores) and also the hypothesis (a) to be tested, it was found that the surface approach showed correlation with that academic achievement. As could be seen, the surface approach showed an inverse relationship with their r= -0.229. The negative correlation means that the frequent the students use surface approach in their studies, with higher possibility of their lower academic achievement would be. This was paralleled with Zaza Eliza Mohd Redza et. al. (2013) in their research found there was a significant negative relationship between the surface approach and the examination result. Besides, the result of this study also paralleled with Hanin Naziha Hasnor et. al. (2013) with their study revealed there was an inverse relationship between the surface approach and the academic achievement. Furthermore, Herrmann et. al. (2017) and Mayya et. al. (2004) with their study also revealed the same result.
Thus, the alternative hypothesis, Ha was accepted with statement of “There is a significant
correlation between the surface learning approach with the academic attainment” but it went inversely proportional as illustrated in Figure 2 too.
Table 3: Correlation matrix between students’ learning approaches and academic performance Surface Deep Academic Performance
Surface Pearson Correlation 1 0.056 -0.229
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.794 0.283
N 24 24 24
Deep Pearson Correlation 0.056 1 0.069
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.794 0.747
N 24 24 24
Academic Performance Pearson Correlation -0.229 0.069 1 (continuous assessment) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.283 0.747
N 24 24 24
Table 3 also presented the correlation between students’ deep learning approach on academic achievement. The hypothesis (b) was to be tested. The findings found that the deep approach showed positive but weak correlation with that academic achievement (continuous assessment in the subject of Thermodynamics) with their r=0.069. The positive correlation means that the more the students use deep approach in their studies, the higher and better their academic performance or achievement would be. This was paralleled with Zaza Eliza Mohd Redza et. al.
(2013), Hanin Naziha Hasnor et. al. (2013), Herrmann et. al. (2017) and Mayya et. al. (2004) in their research found there was a positive, weak relationship between deep approach and the examination result. Thus, the alternative hypothesis, Ha was accepted with statement of “There is a significant correlation between the deep learning approach with the academic attainment”
with weaker correlation but it went directly proportional as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 2: The negative and small correlation between surface learning approach with the academic achievement in continuous assessment (CA)
Figure 3: The positive and weak correlation between deep learning approach with the academic achievement in continuous assessment (CA).
This study revealed that the surface approach showed the low and inverse correlation with the academic achievement. This implies that the more the students use the surface approach in their studies, the lower their academic attainment would be. This finding proposes that students need to minimize the use of surface approach for them to gain good results. The rational of doing this due to the surface learning approach is inversely proportional to the academic attainment.
Thus, the educator should discourage surface approach to learning and helping students to employ the deep approach to learning. In other words, students should have the right intention in their studies for their professional succeed.
Furthermore, it is suggested that management of the institution to organise seminars or talks to teach awareness to the students on the different approaches in their learning. Besides, educators need to be aware that their teaching practices can affect the intention of the students too. The implementation of Outcome Based Education (OBE) in polytechnic’s studies requires student to achieve the goal (outcomes) by means of deep and thorough understanding and mastering of the subject they study. Educators must provide course materials that require the students to think critically, to understand deeply and to be able to solve problem-based questions or case studies. Thus, by promoting or inducing the deep approach to learning not only may parallel to the concept of OBE, but it is also hoping that the surface approach to learning can be reduced.
This study is limited to a class that is taught by author as an experimental group. It may be unrepresentative of learning approaches for all students in institution. However, this study can be extended by favourable to enlarge its sample size in future studies. Despites its limitation, this study is significant to educators and students since it proves the need to adopt right learning approach among students for them to be more succeed in the course.
Acknowledgment
Author would like to acknowledge Professor Dr. John Biggs for his permission to allow author to use the R-SPQ-2F in this study.
References
Biggs, J.B. (1999). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning. Higher Education
Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642839
Biggs, J.B., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001) The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
Hanin Naziha Hasnor, Zaiton Ahmad & Norshidah Nordin (2013). The Relationship Between Learning Approaches And Academic Achievement Among Intec Students, UiTM Shah Alam. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 178-186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.080.
Herrmann, K.J., McCune, V. & Bager-Elsborg, A. (2017). Approaches to Learning as Predictors of Academic Achievement: Results From A Large Scale, Multi-level Analysis. Högre utbildning, 7, 29–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.23865/hu.v7.905.
Jackson, M. (2012). Deep Approaches to Learning in Higher Education. In: Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1843.
Mayya, S., Rao, AK., & Ramnarayan, K. (2004). Learning Approaches, Learning Difficulties and Academic Performance of Undergraduate Students of Physiotherapy. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. 2(4). http://ijahsp.nova.edu.
Sagar Khillar (2020, May 1). Difference Between Deep Learning and Surface Learning.
DifferenceBetween.net. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference- between-deep-learning-and-surface-learning/
Weimer, M. (2012, December 3). Deep Learning vs. Surface Learning: Getting Students to Understand the Difference; November 19, 2012. Lander University’s White Board.
https://www.lander.edu/sites/lander/files/Documents/About/Offices_Departments/ac ademic-affairs/whiteboards/whiteboard-12dec.pdf
Zaza Eliza Mohd Redza, Suhaiza Ismail, Suhaimi Mhd. Sarif & Yusof Ismail (2013). Do Approaches To Learning Affect Academic Performance Of Business Ethics Students?. Journal of Technical Education and Training (JTET), 5(1).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263581619_DO_APPROACHES_TO_LE ARNING_AFFECT_ACADEMIC_PERFORMANCE_OF_BUSINESS_ETHICS_S TUDENTS.
