This posting refers to A2 in week 12 of course H800 at the OU. We were asked to read an article by John Richardson which summarises the qualitative and quantitative research of students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education since the 1970s.

The article itself can be accessed online but I think the full text is only viewable to subscribers of the magazine or students who access the material through their online libraries. In this posting, I will comment on two quotes I found particularly interesting.

At the beginning of the article, Richardson defines three approaches to studying in higher education. I found this distinction thought-provoking as I come across similar approaches in my daily work at school and because the labels were new to me.

… a deep approach, based upon understanding the meaning of course materials; a surface approach, based upon memorising the course materials for the purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining the highest grades. Even so, the same student could exhibit different approaches to studying in different situations.

A few lines below, Richardson explains that studies comparing problem-based learning and subject-based curricula have shown that

students following problem-based curricula are more likely to adopt a deep approach to studying and are less likely to adopt a surface approach to studying.

These statements made me think a little. First, of course, I thought about the three approaches Richardson described at the beginning of the article. As teachers I think it is one of our main goals to help students to encounter a lasting and impressive learning experience. But is it always necessary in every subject with every topic to achieve that? Don’t we as teachers demand too much of our pupils if we make them learn intensively and deeply everything? Or is it sometimes also ok for us as teachers if some content is just discussed on the surface, just to get it done, before dedicating more time and energy to thoroughly treating topics that we regard as more promising?

And how about the students? Is it ok for them to actively decide for the strategic approach and do some work just to get a good grade? I know that also in higher education, a number of tasks are just fulfilled in order to pass a course, so there’s no doubt about the fact that the strategic approach does exist and occupies a more or less prominent position. But I’m asking myself if we think that this is ok from an ethical, moral point of view. Is it ok to think strategically in learning – or should we be grateful for any learning opportunity and dig as deeply into the materials as possible?

This made me then doubt the second quote about the influence of problem-based learning. If we agree on the fact that more or less work in school and also in higher education is done only to fulfil course requirements – doesn’t that stand in the way of a deep approach in learning and in the end lead to the conclusion that by modelling our teaching according to a problem-based or a subject-based approach we might provide a more or less engaging learning experience for our students – but in the end, due to strategic reasons – it doesn’t make such a big difference?