Site Map
Calendar
Join our lists and receive site news!
 
Return to Higher Ed home page
  Contact Higher Ed
Higher Ed Conference
Guide to HE Site
  Table of Contents
April 2007
Advocate Online
They're Talking On Campus...
On the Road
Action Line
In the Know
From Capitol to Campus
NEA Affiliates in Action
Thriving in Academe
Higher Education News
The Dialogue
Speaking Out
Previous Advocate Issues



Advocate Online

Thriving in Academe
Issues To Consider

Deep Learning Requires In-Depth Teaching

Both students and teachers need support to expand their approaches to learning and achieve deeper competencies.

issues iconWhy do students object to moving outside their comfort zone?
Where a student falls in a quadrant on the Kolb LSI depends upon a play of their scores on the four poles. Sometimes students (and teachers) have extremely high scores on two of the poles and very low scores on one or two others. We have observed that both teachers and students are hesitant to explore their weak areas. For example, a student who is very high on reflective observation may abhor talking in class and may refuse to participate in active learning exercises. Or a student who is very high on abstract conceptualization may downplay the value of field trips, personal anecdotes, and classroom interaction. However, if we apply our theory that working around the poles results in deep learning, we can carefully prepare, then gently nudge our more recalcitrant students to step outside their comfort zone and try new approaches.

How do we avoid pigeonholing students?
Learning styles models can be misused to pigeonhole students. If a student is defined simply as an “active experimenter,” the teacher may allow the student to spend all of his time in the field, and not require that he sit down and reflectively analyze his data. To avoid labeling students, encourage them to integrate all four poles and all four questions into everything they study and prepare. This will demonstrate that we are interested in their full performance and their in-depth learning, because we understand that each learner really learns in all four ways.

What is the difference in surface and deep learning?
Researchers have defined surface and deep learning in several ways, the most superficial definition being “Surface is bad, deep is good.” “Surface” may be used to connote shallow processing skills such as memorization, quick presentation, passive listening, or focusing on coverage. “Deep” learning may refer to tying the encoding of new information to existing learner knowledge, focusing on conceptual learning by confronting misconceptions, or relating material to students’ current levels of understanding. Using the LSI framework allows teachers to provide a more useable definition: deep learning means working students and the concept, skill, or process around all four poles and probing students and the content, skill, or process with all four questions until they experience mastery and a high degree of confidence that they have made the information their own.

return to "Thriving in Academe"




Search NEA Higher Ed


References & Resources
Biggs, John B. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SHRE and Open University Press. Buckingham, England.

de Jesus, Helena T. Pedrosa, Almeida, Patricia Albergaria, Teixeira-Dias, Jose Joaquim, and Watts, Mike. “Students’ Questions: Building a Bridge between Kolb’s Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning,” Education & Training. Vol. 48 (2-3), pp. 97-111. (2006)

Entwistle, Noel J. (1988). Styles of Learning and Teaching. David Fulton.

Johnson, John A. “Beyond the Learning Paradigm: Customizing Learning in American Higher Education: 10 Bellwether Principles for Transforming American Higher Education,” Community College Journal of Research & Practice. Vol. 30 (2), pp. 97-116. Feb 2006.

Kolb, David, Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1984.

Kolb Learning Styles Inventory, www.haygroup.com/
ww/About/ Index.asp?id=495

Long, Holly E. and Coldren, Jeffrey T. “Interpersonal Influences in Large Lecture-Based Classes: A Socioinstructional Perspective,” College Teaching. Vol. 54 (2), pp. 237-243. (2006).

Shulman, Lee S. (2004). The Wisdom of Practice. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.

Svinicki, Marilla D. (2004). Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker

Villaverde, J. E. and Godoy, D.; Amandi, A. “Learning Styles’ Recognition in E-Learning Environments with Feed-Forward Neural Networks,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 22 (3). pp. 197-206. June 2006.

Weimer, Maryellen. (2002) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.


   ^ Back to Top
 

NEA 1201 16TH Street, NW Washington, DC 20036  |  Tel. 202.833.4000
Privacy Statement | Report problems to: HEwebmaster@nea.org