Research into reading and learning

Some of the Gothenburg University studies that identified qualitative differences in learning were based on the outcomes of reading, i.e. students were required to read a set text and questions were asked about the text as well as about the way in which the students completed the task (Marton & Saljo, 1976a, 1976b, Svensson, 1977). Student responses to questions suggested a variety of differences in the way they acquired and processed the information. While some students focussed on the intention of the authors and tried to identify the principle ideas (content), others tried to memorise as much as possible and often recalled the examples (signs) cited by the authors rather than the main ideas. The former was seen as a product of deep-level processing and the students had adopted a holistic approach to their activity whereas the latter was a result of surface-level processing and the students had an atomistic approach to the task. Student comments were categorised into conclusion-oriented comments, descriptions and mentions. However the Gothenburg researchers recognised that students may not fall neatly into a particular category (e.g. some may be conclusion-mentioning or description-mentioning), and that the approach or strategy adopted by a student may depend on the student's perception of task (Fransson, 1977; Saljo, 1979).

Is a deep/holistic approach to reading always the most efficient route for high achievement? What if the only assessment requirement is listing a number of 'facts'? In Dahlgren's (1997) view, "when questions asked of students are at base quantitative or fail to penetrate beyond what can be more or less unreflectively retained in the memory, students' misapprehensions are disguised within spuriously satisfactory answers or cloaked in technical jargon" (p. 38). In some cases academic failure "may result from a devotion to thorough understanding", if a large body of material must be dealt with in a short time (Svensson, 1997, pp. 70-71).

• Dahlgren, L. (1997). Learning conceptions and outcomes. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistile (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed., pp. 23-38). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
• Fransson, A. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning IV: Effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 244-257.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning II: Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
• Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective IV: Considering one's own strategy (Rep. No. 79). Mölndal, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Institute of Education.
• Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning III: Study skill and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 233-243.
• Svensson, L. (1997). Skill in learning and organising knowledge. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistile (Eds.), The experience of learning (2 nd ed., pp. 59-71). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.