Teaching for Deep Learning

Author(s): Tracy Wilson Smith and Susan A. Colby

Source: The Clearing House , May - Jun., 2007, Vol. 80, No. 5 (May - Jun., 2007), pp.
205-210
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30189920

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Clearing House

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Teaching for Deep Learning
TRACY WILSON SMITH and SUSAN A. COLBY

Abstract: The authors have been engaged in research focused teachers in seventeen states (Smith, Gordon, Colby, and
on students' depth of learning as well as teachers' efforts to Wang 2005). The sample included elementary, middle,
foster deep learning. Findings from a study examining the
and high school teachers. Thirty-five (55 percent) of
teaching practices and student learning outcomes of sixty-
the participants had achieved National Board Certifica-
four teachers in seventeen different states (Smith et al. 2005)
indicated that most of the learning in these classrooms was tion, and twenty-nine (45 percent) had attempted but
characterized by reproduction, categorizing of information, had not achieved National Board Certification. Spe-
or replication of a simple procedure. In addition to these and cifically, we designed the study to answer two research
other findings, in this article, the authors provide a definition
questions: (a) Do students taught by National Board
of surface and deep learning and describe the structure of the
observed learning outcome taxonomy, which was used to
Certified teachers produce deeper responses (to class
evaluate depth of learning. The authors also provide implica- assignments and standardized writing assessments)
tions for practitioners interested in fostering deep student than students of teachers who attempted National
learning. Board Certification but were not certified? (b) Do
National Board Certified teachers develop instruction
Keywords: deep learning, education standards, SOLO tax-
and structure class assignments designed to produce
onomy, surface learning
deeper responses than teachers who attempted National
Board Certification but were not certified?
n public education and in a democratic society, few The findings of our study yielded statistically sig-
could question the spirit and intention of the moral nificant differences between the comparison groups;
imperative to provide all children the opportunity to however, some of the most interesting results of the
learn and meet high standards. However, in recent years, study were related to teachers' efforts to elicit and
our approaches to help all students meet higher stan- obtain deep learning outcomes with their students,
dards have resulted in the establishment of a system in regardless of their National Board Certification sta-
which we equate high standards with high test scores. At tus. We assessed teachers' instructional aims through
times, it seems such a system limits students' prospects qualitative and quantitative analyses of work samples
for moving beyond superficial thinking (Kohn 2000). As submitted based on a unit of instruction. The findings
educators, we must advocate for a focus on learning that indicated that a majority of the teachers (64 percent),
fosters students' opportunities to reach for deeper levels regardless of certification status, aimed instruction and
of understanding. Evidence has shown that teachers can assignments toward surface learning outcomes. Addi-
adopt a surface or deep approach to teaching, which has tionally, analysis of student work samples collected in
consequential effects on what and how students learn the study suggested that the student outcomes in most
(Boulton-Lewis et al. 2001). of the teachers' classrooms were at the surface level (78
Recently, we completed a study examining the teach- precent). These findings suggest that most of the learn-
ing practices and student learning outcomes of sixty-four ing in these classrooms was characterized by reproduc-

Tracy Wilson Smith, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, where she also
serves as assistant middle grades education program coordinator. Susan A. Colby, EdD,
is assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Appalachian
State University in Boone, North Carolina. Copyright a 2007 Heldref Publications

205

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 206 The Clearing House May/June 2007

procedures that do not involve

tion or categorizing of information reflection, and usu-
or replication of
simple procedure. ally an intention to gain a passing grade. In contrast,
In our study, we learned that
a deep approachour teacher
to learning partici-
involves an intention to
understand levels;
pants tended to teach at surface and impose meaning. Here, the student
therefore, their
students generated surfacefocuses on relationships between
responses. various aspects
Furthermore, w
suspect that this finding of
isthenot
content, formulates hypotheses
uncommon or beliefs
among th
about the structure
general population of teachers and of the problem or concept,
students. and
To rever
relates more to obtaining an intrinsic interest in
this trend, we propose that teachers need to under-
learning approaches
stand, value, and foster deep and understanding. High-quality
to learninglearn- i
their students. ing outcomes are associated with deep approaches
whereas low-quality outcomes are associated with
Defining Surface and Deep Learning
surface approaches (Biggs 1987; Entwistle 2001;
Although the distinctionMarton and Silji 1984).
between Teachers who
surface andare more
deep
learning seems intuitive to
likely most educators,
to lead students it has
to deep learning structure les- als
sons, Marton
been well documented. set tasks, and provide
and feedback and challenge
Siljo (1976
completed the originalthat
work related
encourage the development ofto deep and
deep processing
(Hattie 1998, 2002).Their study exam
surface approaches to learning.
ined students' approaches to a particular task. They
The SOLO Taxonomy
instructed students participating in the study to rea
a text and told them thatIn they
our study, we
would
used a research-based
laterframework
be asked
questions about it. Students to assess teachers'
adopted instructional
two approaches and
differin
approaches to this task.students' Thelearningfirst approach
outcomes. This framework, was
the t
try to understand the big structure
ideasof the in
observed
the learning outcome (SOLO)
passage; thei
focus was on comprehending taxonomy, andis a promising tool that educators can the
understanding
text. The researchers characterized use to understand and students
examine the depth using
of teach- th
approach as adopting a ing deep approach
and learning. Informed by the to learning
work of Marton
The second approach involved (1976, 1984)an and his colleagues, Biggs
attempt toand Collis
remem
ber the facts and details from the text and a focus on (1982) created the SOLO taxonomy that illustrates a
what they thought they would be asked later. This continuum from surface to deep learning. The SOLO
group demonstrated rote learning, or a superficial, taxonomy is structured into five major hierarchical
surface approach to the task. levels that reflect the quality of learning of a particu-
According to Marton's framework, a surface lar episode or task. In his most recent book, Biggs
approach involves minimum engagement with the (1999) represented the SOLO taxonomy graphically,
task, typically a focus on memorization or applying as shown in figure 1.

Coherent whole
generated to a
higher level of
Several aspects abstraction
integrated into
a whole
Two or more

aspects-no
relationships

One aspect

Misses Point

Prestructural Unistructural Multistructural Relational Extended Abstract

SQUANTITATIVE PHASE . .... r QUALITATIVE PHASE

FIGURE 1. Graphic representation of the structure of the observed learning
outcome (SOLO) taxonomy (Biggs 1999).

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. 80, No. 5 Teaching for Deep Learning 207

The first level, prestructural,

in a different
represents
context (e.g., current
a response global conflicts).
that is irrelevant or misses Collegial
the point.
dialogue related
The to deep
next learningtwooutcomes
levels, unistructural and multistructural, correspond
is essential as teachers progress from identifying what
to surface learning, and the deepfinal
learning two (relational
looks like in their content area and
to devel-
extended abstract) correspondoping toactivities
deep and assessments
learning. correlated
An with deep
learning outcomes.
advantage and unique distinction of the SOLO model
In the early
is that it can be used to reliably stages of our
analyze study,inter-
and the research team
found our dialogue
pret classroom lessons and assignments, and the about learning to be
stu-particu-
larly helpful
dent work produced in response to as we worked
those collaboratively to design
assignments
a writing et
(Bond et al. 2000; Boulton-Lewis assessment that would
al. 2001; elicit deep student
Boulton-
Lewis, Wilss, and Mutch 1996; Burnett
learning. 1999;
Prior to designing the Chan et
writing assessment,
al. 2002; Hattie 1998, 2002; Hattie we engaged etin multiple discussions focused on the
al. 1996).
question: What is depth of knowledge of writing? As
A Call to Action: Implications for our thoughts, we realized how
we began to formulate
Practitioners
important our dialogue was to our understanding of
What prevented the teachers in our study from fos-what deep learning looks like in the area of writing.
tering deep learning outcomes among their students? We then envisioned how helpful similar conversa-
One possibility is that these teachers had not been tions would be to students engaged in the learning
process. From our experiences, we discovered that
given the training, tools, and time to engage in prac-
tices that contribute to these outcomes. Educators must students who move beyond a surface approach to
engage in intentional efforts to foster deep learning inlearning consider any given task as a series of inter-
their students. This section gives recommendations for nal rhetorical questions: What do I know about this
promoting deep learning among students. We have subject? How does this information relate to what
also used a high school world history class scenario to I already know? What is the broader implication or
illustrate how the SOLO taxonomy can be translated significance of what I've learned? If students do not
into practice. naturally ask these questions, their teachers must
model aloud thought processes that lead to deep
Engage in Dialogue about Deep Learning outcomes and support students as they are engaged
A critical first step in the effort to foster deep student in reflecting about the quality of their own learning.
learning is to raise and cultivate awareness regarding Our goal as teachers should be to help students ask
the characteristics of deep and surface learning. One questions of themselves as they are learning and to
way to accomplish this is to engage all members of help them establish habits for continually using a
the learning community in intentional, substantive, deep approach to learning.
and inclusive dialogue about student learning. Some
of these conversations should take place as part of Examine Teaching and Learning
formal professional development sessions focused In addition to raising awareness and understanding
on understanding what deep learning looks like. about the quality of student learning through dialogue,
Other conversations, although more informal, should educators must engage in purposeful, systematic exam-
occur more frequently among teams of colleagues. For inations of their teaching and the resultant student
example, in a typical ninth grade world history course, learning. Teachers must critically examine the teaching
students might be asked to analyze the causes and resources they are using, the types of questions they
results of twentieth-century conflicts among nations are asking students, the assignments they are develop-
(North Carolina standard course of study). Prior to ing and requiring of students, and their methods of
developing this set of lessons, world history teachers assessing the quality of student learning. One repeating
might engage in collegial dialogue focused on the fol- pattern in the teachers' artifacts was that the teachers'
lowing questions: (a) What does a deep understand- expectations or the design of the instructional materi-
ing of twentieth-century conflicts look like? (b) How als seemed to limit students. It was often difficult to
will we know that students have a deep understanding determine students' actual depth of learning because
of these conflicts? A deep level of learning related to the tasks and questions assigned to them aimed only
this outcome might be characterized by a response at surface outcomes. Students rarely demonstrated a
that uses multiple independent details about the deep understanding when the tasks were not aimed at
causes and effects of specific conflicts to support a fostering deep learning outcomes.
general understanding of how conflicts have affected The SOLO taxonomy is particularly helpful as a tool
our nation and our world. If a student is able to con- for examining the quality of teaching and learning.
struct such a sophisticated response, that student will Teachers can use the SOLO taxonomy to construct
be more able to develop and support generalizations and categorize questions and assignments (Hattie and

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 208 The Clearing House May/June 2007

Purdie 1998) and to determine Equally as important

whether are independent
their examinations
instruc
tional goals and tasks will promote deep student
of student work that, conducted regularly, allow learn
teach-
ing. Returning to our world ers to determine
history their own class
effectiveness in helping
scenario,
high school world history students
teacher
achieve deep learning
adopting outcomes. Using
a surfac
the
approach to learning may SOLO taxonomy about
teach as a framework the when examining and
causes
results of World War II bywork produced by theirassigning
lecturing, students, teachersreadings
can begin
and conducting multiple-choice
to understand what tests that
type of learning their evaluate
instructional a
methods are recall,
student's ability to memorize, yielding and how andwell their
even students are
catego
rize the specific causes andperforming.
results They can then use this information
previously reviewed. to
In contrast, a high schoolsupport
world students in achieving deep
history learning outcomes
teacher adopt
related to specific
ing a deep approach to learning may content.require
Because the SOLO taxon-
student
to develop a more conceptualomy represents understanding
a learning cycle, we must continually abou
war. The teacher may requiresupport students students
as we introduce new to use
ideas. We can- th
understanding when proposingnot assume thatsolutions
because a student has toreached a deep
current
conflicts around the world. level ofUsing
understanding the
with oneSOLO
idea, the student
taxonom will
understand other
in content-specific instruction and ideas atassessment
the same level. One simple allow
method for supporting
teachers to determine whether theystudents are infacilitating
the attainment of
surface or deep approach deepto learning outcomes is to assist them in reaching
learning.
for the next level on
The usefulness of the taxonomy the SOLO
was taxonomy. Our in
evident experi-our
study. When we evaluated ences as researchers
the teachers'and classroom teachers indicate
materials, we
realized that many of thethat the taxonomy is sowere
resources straightforward that students
commerciall
made. We worked with our scorers to defuse the bias in upper elementary, high school, and college can
that often accompanies the observation of worksheet- understand its value for evaluating their own learning.
driven instruction. We trained scorers to assess the
Rethink Classroom Assessment
value and intent of materials for eliciting deep student
learning based on the SOLO taxonomy rubrics cre- One of the greatest values of the SOLO taxonomy is
ated for this study. Even when teachers had not cre- that it provides a framework for accomplishing a criti-
ated the materials, we assumed that they purposely cal aim of classroom assessment: improving student
selected them for the particular lessons. If the teaching understanding and performance. Wiggins (1998) sug-
resources were designed to elicit surface responses, usu- gested, "the aim of assessment is primarily to educate
ally students responded in like manner. If, however, and improve student performance, not merely to audit
the instructional materials were designed to foster the it" (original emphasis, 7). Wiggins contended that when
understanding of concepts, relationships, and other we test what is easy to test, we sacrifice our aims, our
deep outcomes, students made connections among the children's intellectual needs, and information regard-
facts and details presented to arrive at more sophisti- ing what we truly want to assess. Instead, we settle for
cated understandings. By examining the learning goals, score accuracy and efficiency. If we do not study howr
resources, content, and sequence of instruction with the students learn and demonstrate their learning, we can
SOLO taxonomy in mind, teachers can ascertain if their never understand how to help them learn better. Simi-
instructional materials and approaches have potential to larly, Hattie and Jaeger (1998) argued for an approach
move students beyond surface into deep learning. to assessment that acknowledges its importance in the
Likewise, teachers can use the SOLO taxonomy to learning process. They contend "assessment needs to be
evaluate the work and responses of students. Examining an integral part of a model of teaching and learning if it
student learning is essential if we are to understand the is to change from its present status as an adjunct to 'see'
results of our efforts to support students in achieving if learning has occurred, to a new status of being part
deep learning. Our analyses of student work should be of the teaching and learning process" (111). The SOL(O
collaborative and independent. Collaborative examina- taxonomy has potential for helping practitioners assess
tions of student work help teachers determine the con- student learning in process. It not only acknowledges
cepts, principles, and generalizations they value in their the importance of facts and information, but also pro-
respective content areas. By examining student work vides a way to think about the progression of student
samples collaboratively, with others who teach the same learning to higher levels.
course or content, teachers can identify student work at For example, The SOLO taxonomy has practical ben-
different levels of the continuum and analyze how and efits when used as the framework for communicating
why particular work samples represent various levels. expectations and creating rubrics to evaluate student
More important, what practitioners learn from this pro- work. If the teacher of the world history course asked
cess can inform discussions about how they might help students to describe the relationships between the
students in achieving deep learning outcomes. causes and effects of twentieth-century conflicts among

This content downloaded from

:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. 80, No. 5 Teaching for Deep Learning 209

nations, the responses he or she might REFERENCES

receive are likely
to represent a range of complexity. If
Biggs, J. 1987. Student theto learning
approaches teacher wants
and studying. Melbourne:
to evaluate students' depth of learning
Australian Council for Educationalrelative
Research. to the
- . 1999. Teaching
curriculum goal, the task must be open enough that for quality learning at university. England:
Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
students have flexibility inPress.their responses. She can
provide feedback to studentsBiggs, J.,who provided
and K. E Collis. 1982. Evaluating thesurface
quality of learning: The
responses and guide them toSOLO taxonomy. Newlevels
deeper York: Academic.of learning.
Bond, L., T. W. Smith, W. K. Baker, and J. A. C. Hattie. 2000. The
In this way, SOLO is used as an instructional and an
certification system of the national board for professional teaching stan-
evaluative tool. Table 1 provides characteristics
dards: A construct and consequential validity study,of pos-
http://www.nbpts
sible responses for each level.org/research/research_archive.cfm
of the SOLO taxonomy. (accessed October 1, 2000).
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., D. Smith, A. R. McCrindle, P. C. Burnett, and
Our study provides evidence K.that although deep leam-
I. Campbell. 2001. Secondary teachers' conceptions of teaching
ing can happen, most often, it doesLearning
and learning. not. andPromising
Instruction 11 (1): 35-51. steps
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., L. Wilss, and S. Mutch. 1996. Teachers as adult
along the way to helping students achieve deep learning
learners: Their knowledge of their own learning and implications
include (a) supporting teachers as Higher
for teaching. they engage
Education 32 (1): 89-106. in dia-
logue about surface and deep
Burnett,learning, (b) of
P C. 1999. Assessing the outcomes examining
counseling within a learning
frameworh. Paper
teaching practices and the resultant presented at the learning,
student annual conference of the
andAmerican
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
(c) rethinking classroom assessment
Chan, C. C., M. Tsui, M.withY C. Chan,deep learning
and J. H. Hong. 2002. Applying
approaches in mind. Abigail the Adams stated,
structure of the observed "learning
learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy
is not attained by chance; iton must
student's learning
be outcomes:
sought An empirical study. Assessment
for with and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27 (6): 511-17.
ardor and attended to with Entwistle,
diligence" (Howe
N. 2001. Conceptions, styles 2003).
and approaches Our
within
research has shown that teachers' efforts
higher education: to foster
Analytic abstractions deep
and everyday experience.
In Perspectives on cognitive, learning,
learning outcomes do make a difference. and thinhing styles, ed. R.
As educators, weStern-
berg and L. E Zhang, 103-36. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
must devote ourselves to intentional
Hattie, J. A. C. 1998.rather than
Evaluating the Paideia program happen-
in Guilford County
stance efforts to teach for deep student
schools: learning.
First year report: 1997-1998. Greensboro: Center for Edu-

TABLE 1. Characteristics of Possible Student Responses Corresponding to Structure of the Observed Learn-
ing Outcome (SOLO) Levels

SOLO level Characteristics of possible student response Rationale for SOLO rating

Surface Prestructural The student response indicates that there were

The student misses the point and generates a
many causes and effects of conflicts in the
response that merely repeats the question.
twentieth century.
Unistructural The student response provides one cause The
and response focuses on only one aspect of
effect pair related to World War II. the task. The student has defined the task
in a limited way, focusing only on one
specific twentieth-century conflict.
Mulistructural The student response provides multiple causeThe student has provided multiple relevant
and effect pairs related to World War II. details but has not discussed the relationship
among those details. The teacher knows that
the student used a recall strategy to generate
the response because all cause and effect
pairs had been discussed in class.
Deep Relational The student response provides multiple causeThe student has identified multiple relevant
details and has discussed the relationship
and effect pairs related to multiple twentieth-
century conflicts. Additionally, the student between these details.
discusses the relationships between the causes
and effects and uses examples from various
conflicts as support.
Extended abstract The student response provides multiple causeThe student has identified multiple relevant
and effect pairs related to multiple twentieth-
details, discussed the relationships among
century conflicts. Additionally, the student these details, and has constructed principles
about conflict that he or she has used to
discusses the relationships between the causes
and effects and uses examples from various develop hypotheses about global conflicts
conflicts as support. Finally, the student that might not have been explicitly studied in
hypothesizes how similar cause and effectthe twentieth-century conflicts unit.
pairs might play out in specific current
conflicts (or in conflicts in regions of the
world not previously discussed).

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 210 The Clearing House May/June 2007

cational Research and Evaluation, University

Kohn, A. 2000. Standardized testing of
and itsNorth Carolin
victims. Education Week.
Greensboro. http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm (accessed
. 2002. What are the attributes of excellent teachers? In Teach-September 27, 2000).
Marton, E, and R. Siljo. 1976. On qualitative differences in learn-
ers make a difference: What is the research evidence?, ed. Bev Webber,
1-17. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. ing: Outcome as a function of learners' conception of task. British
Hattie, J. A. C., J. C. Clinton, M. Thompson, and H. Schmitt-Davis. lournal of Educational Psychology 46: 115-27.
1996. Identifying expert teachers. Technical report presented to the - . 1984. Approaches to learning. In The experience of learning,
National Board for Professional Standards, Detroit, MI. ed. E Marton, D. Hounsell, and D. N. Entwistle, 39-58. Edin-
burgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Hattie, J. A. C., and R. Jaeger. 1998. Assessment and classroom learn-
ing: A deductive approach. Assessment in Education 5 (1): 111-21.Smith, T. W., B. Gordon, S. A. Colby, and J. Wang. 2005. An examination
Hattie, J. A. C., and N. Purdie. 1998. The SOLO model: Address- of the relationship between depth of student learning and national board
ing fundamental measurement issues. In Teaching and learning in certification status. http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/Applachian
higher education, ed. B. Dart and G. Boulton-Lewis, 72-101. Mel- State_studyD_-_Smith.pdf (accessed January 8, 2007).
bourne: ACER Press. Wiggins, G. 1998. Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform
Howe, R., ed. 2003. The quotable teacher. Guilford, CT: Lyons. and improve student performance. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

The Clearing House

The ClearingHouse is now receiving submissions only through
Manuscript Central.

To submit a manuscript to The Clearing House, visit

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/heldref/tch

For further information about the program, please visit these Web sites:

V http://www.scholarone.com/products_manuscriptcentral.html
(link to information about Manuscript Central on ScholarOne's Web site)

v/ http://mcv3help.manuscriptcentral.com/stalkjddfesd/MC3Help.htm
(link to the user guide on how Manuscript Central works)

/ http://mcv3help.manuscriptcentral.com/intro/
(link to short video presentation about Manuscript Central)

This content downloaded from

131.217.255.206 on Tue, 04 May 2021 23:03:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms