Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Deep learning” represents student engagement in approaches to learning that emphasize integration, synthesis, and reflection. Because learning is a shared responsibility between students and faculty, it is important to determine whether faculty members emphasize deep approaches to learning and to assess how much students employ these approaches. This study examines the effect of discipline on student use of and faculty members’ emphasis on deep approaches to learning as well as on the relationships between deep approaches to learning and selected educational outcomes. Using data from over 80,000 seniors and 10,000 faculty members we found that deep approaches to learning were more prevalent in Biglan’s soft, pure, and life fields compared to their counterparts. The differences were largest between soft and hard fields. We also found that seniors who engage more frequently in deep learning behaviors report greater educational gains, higher grades, and greater satisfaction with college, and that the strength of these relationships is relatively consistent across disciplinary categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dicotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001) Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185–228). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973a) The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973b) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 1204–1213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education, 8(4), 277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. London, England: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. Smart & W. J. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of research and theory, XI (pp. 1–46). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., & Nordvall, R. C. (1985). Selective liberal arts colleges: Higher quality as well as higher prestige? Journal of Higher Education, 5, 538–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for food practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Higher Education, 42(3), 186–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1), 118–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J., & Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep learning: A preliminary investigation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 539–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66.

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (1994) Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of Higher Education, 65, 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaney, G. D. (1986). Differentiation in graduate education. Research in Higher Education, 25(1), 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcomes. Higher Education, 20, 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2001). Improving the college experience: National benchmarks of effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2002). From promise to progress: How colleges and universities are using student engagement results to improve collegiate quality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2003). Converting data into action: Expanding the boundaries of institutional improvement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006, May). Measuring deep approaches to learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.

  • Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newble, D., & Clarke, R. M. (1985). The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in innovative problem-based medical school. Medical Education, 20, 267–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, D., Kuh, G. D., Schilling, K. M., Schilling, K., Connolly, M., Simmons, A., & Vesper, N. (1998, November). Great expectations: What first-year students say they will do and what they actually do. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The “how” and “what” of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 17, 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995) Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 49–57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (1988). Improving medical students’ clinical problem-solving. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 199–214). London, England: Korgan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., & Wright, H. M. (2000). Approaches to learning and learning environments in problem-based versus lecture-based learning. In Proceedings of the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeegers, P., & Martin, L. (2001). A learning-to-learn program in a first-year chemistry class. Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, 1900 East Tenth Street, Eigenmann Hall Suite 419, Bloomington, IN, 47406-7512, USA

    Thomas F. Nelson Laird, Rick Shoup & George D. Kuh

  2. Las Positas College, Livermore, CA, USA

    Michael J. Schwarz

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Nelson Laird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rick Shoup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George D. Kuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Nelson Laird.

Appendices

Appendix A

Outcomes scales and component items

Gains in personal and intellectual development (16 items; α = 0.91)

    Developing a personal code of values and ethics

    Contributing to the welfare of your community

    Developing a deepened sense of spirituality

    Understanding yourself

    Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds

    Solving complex real-world problems

    Voting in local, state, or national elections

    Learning effectively on your own

    Working effectively with others

    Writing clearly and effectively

    Speaking clearly and effectively

    Thinking critically and analytically

    Acquiring a broad general education

    Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills

    Analyzing quantitative problems

    Using computing and information technology

Grades

    What have most of your grades been up to now at this institution?a

Satisfaction (2 items; α = 0.78)

    How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?b

    If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?c

  1. Note: Except where noted, variables were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much)
  2. aResponses for this item were 1 = C- or lower, 2 = C, 3 = C+, 4 = B−, 5 = B, 6 = B+, 7 = A−, 8 = A
  3. bResponses for this item were 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent
  4. cResponses for this item were 1 = Definitely no, 2 = Probably no, 3 = Probably yes, 4 = Definitely yes

Appendix B

NSSE and FSSE control variables

Name

Description

Control variables for both groups

Gender

0 = Male; 1 = Female

Ethnicitya

African American, American Indian, Asian American, Whiteb, Hispanic, Other, Multiple ethnic identifications, Prefer not to identify

Carnegie classificationa

Doctoral—Extensive, Doctoral—Intensive, Master’s Colleges and Universities I & II, Baccalaureate—Liberal Artsb, Baccalaureate—General, Other classification

Institutional control

0 = Public; 1 = Private

Student control variables

Age

0 = 24 or over, 1 = 23 or younger

Parent’s education level

0 = Either father or mother completed at least an associate’s degree, 1 = Neither father nor mother complete an associate’s degree or higher

International status

0 = U.S. national, 1 = International student or foreign national

Transfer status

0 = Did not transfer; 1 = Transferred

Enrollment status

0 = Part-time; 1 = Full-time

Live on campus

0 = Live off campus; 1 = Live on or near campus

Greek membership

0 = Non-member; 1 = Member of a social fraternity or sorority

Student athlete

0 = Non-athlete; 1 = Student athlete on a team sponsored by the institution’s athletic department

Faculty control variables

Foreign citizenship

0 = U.S. citizen, 1 = Foreign citizenship

Employment status

0 = Part-time; 1 = Full-time

Ranka

Lecturer/instructorb, Assistant professor, Associate professor, Full professor

Years of prior teaching

Continuous variable

Course level

0 = Lower division, 1 = Upper division

  1. aCoded dichotomously (0 = not in group, 1 = in group)
  2. bReference group

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson Laird, T.F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G.D. et al. The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes. Res High Educ 49, 469–494 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation