Share This Article:

The Propensity of a Science-Based Discipline towards Surface Learning Compared to the Arts—A Fresh Look at Two Cultures

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:478KB) PP. 1733-1741
DOI: 10.4236/ce.2015.616175    2,229 Downloads   2,652 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The propensity of science students towards surface and deep learning approaches was investigated to determine whether they were more likely to be encouraged toward a surface rather than deep approach to learning: more specifically do undergraduate environmental science students favour a surface approach to a greater extent than students in other disciplines such as the arts. Examining whether a discipline favours towards students adopting a particular approach to learning, this study surveyed over 500 undergraduate students across seven discipline areas at one university to examine patterns of learning approaches. Analysis of scores reflected tendencies towards surface and deep approaches: motivations and strategies indicated that environmental science students do not adopt a significantly different overall approach compared to students in all other disciplines, apart from a greater tendency towards a surface approach on the main scale and surface strategy subscale compared, specifically, to arts and social science. The findings appear to indicate that both the Schools of Arts & Social Science and Environment, Science & Engineering, while multi-disciplinary in nature, may still show apparent remnants of “two cultures”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Lake, W. , Boyd, W. and Boyd, W. (2015) The Propensity of a Science-Based Discipline towards Surface Learning Compared to the Arts—A Fresh Look at Two Cultures. Creative Education, 6, 1733-1741. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.616175.

References

[1] Baxter, J., & Poullaos, C. (2009). Practices, Profession and Pedagogy in Accounting: Essays in Honour of Bill Birkett. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
[2] Biggs, J. (1987a). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph.
[3] Biggs, J. (1987b). Study Process Questionnaire. Hawthorn, Vic: ACER.
[4] Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Using Constructive Alignment in Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed., pp. 50-63). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
[5] Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
[6] Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. M. (2011a). The Role of Social Identification as University Student in Learning: Relationships between Students’ Social Identity, Approaches to Learning, and Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology, 31, 559-574.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.585948
[7] Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. M. (2011b). Understanding Student Learning in Context: Relationships between University Students’ Social Identity, Approaches to Learning, and Academic Performance. European Jour- nal of Psychology of Education, 26, 417-433.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0065-6
[8] Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7
[9] Kasworm, C. E. (2003). Setting the Stage: Adults in Higher Education. New Directions for Student Services, 2003, 3-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.83
[10] Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the Learning Approaches, Motivation and Study Practices of Asian Students. Higher Education, 40, 99-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004036826490
[11] Luft, J., Hill, K., Nixon, R., Campbell, B., & Dubois, S. (2015). The Knowledge Needed to Teach Science: Approaches, Implications, and Potential Research. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of ASTE. Portland, OR.
[12] Newble, D. I., & Clarke, R. M. (1986). The Approaches to Learning of Students in a Traditional and in an Innovative Problem-Based Medical School. Medical Education, 20, 267-273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01365.x
[13] Pike, G. R., & Killian, T. S. (2001). Reported Gains in Student Learning: Do Academic Disciplines Make a Difference? Research in Higher Education, 42, 429-454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011054825704
[14] Ramsden, P. (1997). The Context of Learning in Academic Departments. The Experience of Learning, 2, 198-216.
[15] Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of Academic Departments on Students’ Approaches to Studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x
[16] Regan, J. (1996). First-Year Southern Cross University Students’ Approaches to Learning and Studying: A Replication Study. Unpublished Thesis (MEd), Lismore: Southern Cross University.
[17] Siemens, G., & Matheos, K. (2012). Systemic Changes in Higher Education. In Education, 16, 3-18.
[18] Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., Platow, M. J., Grace, D. M., & Reynolds, K. J. (2015). Discipline Social Identification, Study Norms and Learning Approach in University Students. Educational Psychology, 35, 53-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822962
[19] Snow, C. P. (2012). The Two Cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[20] Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The Learning Processes of Australian University Students: Investigations of Contextual and Personological Factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02494.x
[21] Williamson, P. K. (2011). The Creative Problem Solving Skills of Arts and Science Students—The Two Cultures Debate Revisited. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 31-43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.001

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.