Our goal might be to support Deep versus Surface Learning, but what does this mean in practical terms. What are the beliefs and dispositions which support teaching for deep learning, and what are the implications of this in terms of the pedagogy we adopt?
Ron Ritchhart describes encouraging Deep vs Surface Learning as one of the five expectations that help shape a culture of thinking. The five expectations describe a continuum along which our teaching practices fall. It is not that we spend all our time at one end of this continuum; the intent is not to create a dichotomy of good versus bad practices. It is more a case that we aim to spend more of our time leaning towards one end of the continuum than the other and that we look for strategies which take our learners with us in this direction.
Surface strategies focus on memory and knowledge gathering, whereas deep strategies are those that help students develop understanding. In designing any episode of learning, effective instructors tend to prompt their students to employ certain modes of processing. This prompting can be done either explicitly as part of the assignment itself, as with the use of thinking routines, or implicitly by signalling the use of what have become commonly expected modes of processing within that learning group for completing such tasks. - Cultures of Thinking
In their recently published research, Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine seek to explore the characteristics of teachers who encourage deep learning. From their search for Deeper Learning in American high schools, they found that there was a remarkably common set of beliefs amongst teachers who were successful in teaching for deep understanding. Such teachers had a high level of pedagogical knowledge and a preferred approach to teaching. They were deliberate and consistent in their approach and believed in the methods they used. They had a stance towards teaching as an act of igniting a spark, encouraging curiosity and interest more so than filling a bucket with knowledge. They could describe seminal experiences which had shaped their approach as teachers. Defining moments of understanding from which they came to see the role they might play if they adopted a particular stance. They had these characteristics, and they perceived the discipline they taught not as a body of knowledge to be learned but as a way of making sense of the world.
To a person, they saw their disciplines as open-ended rather than close-ended fields, meaning that they saw their fields as places where people had constructed provisional knowledge, rather than as places where there was a finished set of answers that needed to be passed on or “professed” to others. . . If teachers saw their fields as fixed or inherited bodies of knowledge, teaching as transmission seemed like a logical and efficient approach. . . . Conversely, if the fields were understood as places where different people would develop different interpretations, experiments, and approaches to problems, it seemed natural to invite students into this process of inquiry, connecting them to the generations of scholars and seekers of knowledge who had come before. (Mehta & Fine 2019 p352)
These teachers understood the true nature of their discipline. They saw themselves as members of a profession that was alive and to which they might contribute new knowledge. Their most valuable knowledge is an understanding of the epistemological foundation of the discipline. They may also possess sound discipline-specific knowledge, but they know that possessing this alone is not sufficient. A scientist is not defined by their recall of the periodic table but by the manner in which they approach puzzles and ambiguity. An author may require a sound knowledge of grammar, but they are defined by their approach to communication as a creative act between their language choices and their audience. Each discipline has its unique epistemological foundation, and deep learning is achieved when teachers invite their students to become participants in this.
This presents a particular challenge for primary and early years teachers. The role requires expertise across multiple disciplines, and while we have some exposure to each, it is unlikely that this is from working as a professional in the field. Undergraduate teaching courses will attempt to provide an overview of the content to be taught, and the curriculum documents unpack this further. Once on the job, professional development is available, which in some cases is specific to teaching within a particular discipline. Courses provide insight into the pedagogical moves which support the learning of specific content. Teachers share project ideas which work, mathematical puzzles which challenge students in new ways and strategies for writing which enhance the quality and creativity of students responses. What is missing from all this are opportunities to engage in the true work of the discipline. There are few opportunities for teachers at any level to be a scientist, a geographer, a historian or an engineer. The result is that most have a limited view of what it is that these people do and a bias towards the historical knowledge base of the field.
The effect of this can be seen in the general level of confidence with which teachers engage with learning across the disciplines. The life of an author or writer is perhaps not too far removed from the experience of the typical teacher. Both are very much about communication. Authors and teachers are in the business of telling stories. Both manipulate language to achieve a desired effect. When it comes to teaching English, most teachers exhibit a reasonable degree of confidence and have an understanding not just of the knowledge an author requires but of what an author does. Maybe the average author disagrees with this perception of what they do, but the teacher at least feels confident. Step into science or mathematics or geography, and the typical teacher relies upon the knowledge they possess, the facts and figures they can recall. They know the scientific method, they know what the symbols on a map mean, they know the process for long division. They know more than their students and are able to use their general teaching skills to transfer this knowledge into the minds of their students.
What they don’t have is a true understanding of the discipline as an open-ended field to which individuals contribute new knowledge and interpretations through a discipline-specific epistemology. This results in lessons which focus on finding engaging methods to teach the content rather than genuinely engaging the learner in the art of the discipline. Mehta and Fine share the metaphor developed by David Perkins of a pedagogy which invites young learners to play the ‘whole game’. When learning to play a sport, the novice player comes to develop a passion for the game not from drills but from the opportunities to play the game at a junior level. Aspects of the game are adjusted to suit their lack of experience, maybe a softer ball or a smaller field is used, but the fundamentals are the same. When applied to learning within a discipline, deep learning is achieved by teachers with sufficient confidence and understanding of the discipline they teach that they can deliver a suitable ‘junior’ version to their learners.
The challenge then is to provide our excellent primary and early years teachers with experiences which reveal to them what it is to be a scientist, geographer, historian etc. Rather than expanding their knowledge of the field, they require experiences which allow them to engage in the practices and the epistemology of the discipline. Armed with this understanding and with their deep understanding of pedagogy, they will become empowered to invite their learners to engage fully with the disciplines they teach.
By Nigel Coutts
Mehta, J. & Fine, S. (2019) In Search of Deeper Learning: The Quest to Remake the American High School Harvard University Press.
Perkins, D. (2009) Making Learning Whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. Josey Bass, San Francisco