A Critical Discussion of Deep and Surface Processing: What It Means, How It Is Measured, the Role of Context, and Model Specification

The relation between Assessment for Learning and elementary students' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use

“…While empirical evidence on the use of learning strategies is inconsistent (e.g., Choy, O'Grady, & Rotgans, 2012;Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012), it is generally assumed that the use of deep-level learning strategies results in higher quality learning than the use of surface learning strategies (Gijbels, Van de Watering, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2005). However, dichotomizing surface learning strategies and deep-level learning strategies entails the danger of giving a too simplified description of strategy use as it suggests that learners are stable in their orientation (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). Yet, research suggests that students are not stable in their orientation, but adjust their strategy use to the requirements of the situation and the task (Gijbels, Segers, & Struyf, 2008;Scouller, 1998).…”

Changes in approaches to learning over three years of university undergraduate study

“…As Entwistle (2000) stated, "A deep approach to studying is generally related to high levels of academic achievement, but only where the assessment procedures emphasise and reward personal understanding" (p.4). Thus contextual factors become important in interpreting studies reported in the literature (Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, & Dochy, 2010;Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). Dinsmore and Alexander (2012) critically reviewed 221 articles that studied deep and surface processing and suggested that variability in 1) definition of a theoretical framework for a study, 2) type of measure, 3) validity evidence, and 4) context (e.g., the students were asked to answer questions based on their learning approaches in a particular course) contributed to inconsistent reported relationships between processing and learning outcomes.…”

“…Thus contextual factors become important in interpreting studies reported in the literature (Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven, & Dochy, 2010;Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). Dinsmore and Alexander (2012) critically reviewed 221 articles that studied deep and surface processing and suggested that variability in 1) definition of a theoretical framework for a study, 2) type of measure, 3) validity evidence, and 4) context (e.g., the students were asked to answer questions based on their learning approaches in a particular course) contributed to inconsistent reported relationships between processing and learning outcomes. Baeten, Kyndt, Struyven and Dochy (2010) categorised the contextual and student factors that "encourage or discourage the adoption of deep approaches to learning in a student-centred learning environment" (p. 245) and reported that assessment, feedback, teachers' approaches and interactivity with the class, and study discipline influenced student learning approaches.…”

Music Academic Performance: Effect of Intrinsic Motivation and Critical Thinking // Rendimiento académico en Música: efecto de la motivación intrínseca y el pensamiento crítico

“…However, it can be seen that the effect of critical thinking on music grades is higher in Group 1; that is, in comparison with students who have better academic performance, students who obtain worse results benefit more from thinking about and analyzing the contents taught in the classroom. This unexpected result may be explained as follows: the more the students process and critically analyze the class contents, the less they will concentrate on studying what the teacher might ask them, so they are already acquiring knowledge and, as they devote more time to thinking about the class material, their learning is deeper (Dinsmore & Alexander, 2012). However, these students do not benefit in their grades, because the teacher may assess differently from the way of the students study (Boyle, Duffy, & Dunleavy, 2003).…”