Philip Duchastel (duchaste@fcae.acast.nova.edu)
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:17:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:17:10 -0500 From: Philip Duchastel <duchaste@fcae.acast.nova.edu> Subject: Re: "Learning Strategies Then and Now: Same or Different?"
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Jackson wrote:
One of the key issues is that since an approach to learning describes an
> intention and an activity, rather than a personality construct, it can be
> affected powerfully by the context in which learning takes place - and it
> is possible to identlify practices which are likely to lead to deep or
> surface approaches. Research evidence suggests that the level of learning
> outcome which a student achieves in a particular learning context will be
> strongly correlated with the approach to learning they take in that context.
This is a good way to put it, I feel. As a skill (approach) rather than a style. I
talked about styles being analogous to literacy in another posting. Tell us, do you
think that the deep/surface approaches can be thought of as skill? More
specifically, could a surface approach be considered merely (!) a deficiency in
study skill? And the deep approach being a well developed study skill?
I also think you are right on in indicating your belief that these
skills/approaches are shaped and called forth so to speak by the instructional
environment. The classic example is the factual multiple-choice test. The context
then should lead students to adopt an approach, even though they might know better.
This again blurs the style-skill issue, though. Since students who have deep
processing skill might be led to adopt a surface approach, we are back to style,
aren't we? But the style here is not connected to preference, nor is it connected
to domains (as Leamnson suggested), but rather to the instructional context.
Somewhat like anxiety research used to distinguish between state and trait modes,
state fluctuating with circumstances.
Perhaps a fundamental problem with learning style research is its predilection for
treating style as trait rather than state or skill. Would that be a good assessment
of the field?
Philip Duchastel
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 10 Feb 1999 - 16:29:11 MET