Research paper writing service india
These differences in emphasis in deep and surface approaches show how the meaning of this fundamental dichotomy has itself to be understood in terms of the context in which approaches to learning are realized. Study Orientations and Perceptions of Academic Departments Although it is clear that the same student may use both deep and surface approaches on different occasions, there was evidence from the interviews that students also showed general orientations to studying. Two of these orientations, meaning orientation and reproducing orientation, are conceptually similar to the deep and surface approaches, even though they describe relatively consistent tendencies in individual students. The study orientations, however, are not assumed to be unchanging characteristics of students: just as students change their conceptions of learning over time, so they may shift their study orientation during a programme of higher education. We might expect, for example, that departments perceived to have excessive assessment and syllabus demands would create reproducing orientations (corresponding to surface approaches) in their students. A complicating factor is the discipline taught in a department. Study orientations vary from one subject area to another, just as the meaning of the deep and surface categories differs in different subject areas.
However, the teaching and assessment policies do differ between departments teaching the same discipline and so relationships with study orientations may still be observed.
Such relationships could only emerge from an analysis of a substantial number of departments and a much larger number of students.
Partly as a result of earlier work at Lancaster, and partly from the research of Biggs (1978) and the ideas of the Gothenburg researchers, an inventory of approaches to studying was developed suitable for administration to large samples of students (Entwistle et al. The inventory asks students about their general approaches to academic work in the normal context of their main courses. Examines evidence critically and uses it cautiously. Actively relates new information to previous knowledge. Prefers to restrict learning to defined syllabus and specified tasks. Qualifications as main source of motivation for learning. Organizes time ineffectively, fails to plan ahead, not prompt in submitting work. Over-readiness to generalize and jump to conclusions without evidence. For our purposes here, the important scales are those making up the meaning and reproducing orientations. The Lancaster research also made use of a questionnaire of course perceptions, with eight sub-scales (Table 9. Freedom in learning How much discretion students have over the choice of content and methods of studying it.
Workload research paper writing service india How heavy the pressure to fulfil the require- ments of the syllabus and assessment is perceived to be. Social climate Quality of academic and social relationships between students. Subject area differences Formal teaching methods Importance placed on lectures and classes relative to individual study. Clear goals and standards How clearly the standards of assessment and ends of studying are perceived to be defined. The fact that students can respond to general questions of this sort, both in the questionnaire and in interviews, suggests that students are able to perceive general differences in teaching and assessment in departments in addition to specific differences between different lecturers within departments. The scales of the course perceptions questionnaire divide into two main groupings. One of these — formal teaching methods, clear goals and standards, and vocational relevance — differentiates mainly between science and professional studies departments, and the rest. Good teaching, freedom in learning, and staff openness to students are the defining characteristics of this evaluative dimension, with social climate and light workload playing lesser parts. The inventory and course perceptions questionnaire are quantitative research instruments, but this does not mean that their use violates the assumptions of the perspective adopted in this book.
The inventory of approaches to studying and the course perceptions questionnaire were administered to 2208 students in 66 departments. The disciplines included were physics, engineering, econo- mics, psychology, English and history.
The two main study orientations (meaning and reproducing) could be identified in all the subject areas.
Departments which were perceived to provide good teaching (and particularly help with studying) combined with freedom in learning (choice of study method and content) were more likely to have students reporting an orientation towards meaning. Reproducing orienta- tions were more commonly found in the departments perceived to combine a heavy workload with a lack of choice over content and method.
Just as students in the Lancaster interview study research paper writing service india described relationships between effective teaching and positive attitudes to studying a topic, so the students in the survey who were working in departments that were evaluated highly were more likely to report involvement with their work. In contrast the students in the negatively evaluated departments were more likely to report cynical and disenchanted attitudes to higher education.
Marton and Sttljd (1976b) had showed that surface approaches to learning were relatively easy to induce in students, while deep approaches were difficult to encourage (Chapter 3). Just as we would expect from these findings, the survey analyses revealed that it was much easier to predict which departments would score highly on reproducing orientation than on meaning orientation. In other words, some departments seem to induce Surface approaches in a direct way. Other departments appear to provide Contexts within which students find it easier to develop an interest in the Subject matter and to use approaches aimed at understanding.
The Influence is, however, less easy to predict, depending presumably more OH the individual students. As we shall see in the next chapter, students differ greatly in what they want to achieve from their studying. The findings have some significant implications for teaching in higher education. In these results are the beginnings of a model of student learning in context. The relationships are complex but should be recognizable to both teachers and students. Previous research had shown clear links between inappropri- ate and excessive assessment demands and surface approaches. This effect is confirmed by the data from the departments in the survey. However it now also seems clear that some departments provide a context which facilitates the development of a meaning orientation. Further study of the detailed differences between these different types of department should reveal how changes in teaching and assessment procedures might discourage a reproducing orientation and allow deep approaches to emerge. Thus interest and commitment to a subject area can be fostered by certain experiences of teaching and by perceived freedom in learning, and intrinsic interest is fundamentally related to a deep approach.
Inadequate previous know- ledge of a topic, itself partly a consequence of inadequacies in teaching, and the anxiety created by research paper writing service india insensitive teaching or an overdemanding syllabus, push students towards a surface approach, as a coping ploy. This model is complicated by the need to consider subject area differences. The disturbing implication of this part of the research is that at least some students may be handicapped in the development and use of both operation and comprehension learning styles by the dominant culture of the discipline in which they are being trained.