411

Higher Education 8 (1979) 411-427 �9 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

S T U D E N T L E A R N I N G A N D P E R C E P T I O N S O F T H E A C A D E M I C

E N V I R O N M E N T

PAUL RAMSDEN Institute ]br Research and Development in Post-Compulsory Education,

University of Lancaster, Lancaster, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

This paper examines tile effects of the organisation of curricula, teaching, and assessment on student learning and looks at the different demands which different academic environments make on their students. After a brief review of research into learning contexts in higher education, data from a course perceptions questionnaire are presented. The principal dimensions which students themselves use to characterise academic environments are identified. The perceptions of students in six departments at one British university are compared; it is concluded that students in different subject areas see themselves to be studying in markedly different environments. The results also suggest students ' evaluations of the teaching and the courses in each department,

Data from the course perceptions questionnaire are supported and amplified by a preliminary analysis of results from semi-structured interviews of students in the six departments. The most important factor to emerge from the item analysis - the degree to which students feel that their teachers provide a facilitant atmosphere for learning is confirmed. Students ' perceptions of their departments and their teachers are shown to exert important influences on their approaches to learning. It is also sug- gested that a student 's perception of a particular learning task influences the level at which he tackles it.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

L i t t l e s y s t e m a t i c t h o u g h t has b e e n g iven to the des ign o f a c a d e m i c

e n v i r o n m e n t s w h i c h e n c o u r a g e s t u d e n t l e a rn ing . I t seems to be t ime to

l o o k m o r e c lose ly at the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c a d e m i c c o n t e x t s a nd to see

h o w t h e y d i f f e r in the d e m a n d s t hey m a k e on the i r s t u d e n t s . W h a t m a k e s

o n e d e p a r t m e n t a " b e t t e r " l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n a n o t h e r ? H o w do

a p p r o a c h e s to l e a r n i n g e x p e c t e d in d e p a r t m e n t s t e a c h i n g d i f f e r e n t disci-

The research reported in this paper is supported by a Social Science Research Council

programme grant.

412

plines differ? Does the context of learning matter in influencing how stu- dents learn? It is somewhat surprising that these questions have hardly yet begun to be answered. In all the considerable volume of research into the correlates of s tudent success and failure, for example, hardly may atten- tion has been paid to the possible effects o f the organisation of the academic environment. Research has concentrated almost exclusively on the at tr ibutes of individuals.

This paper looks at the relationship between student learning and its academic and social context . By context , or environment, is meant the teaching, course organisation, subject areas, and assessment methods of university departments; this definition excludes variables such as the provi- sion of s tudy space, residential accommodat ion, libraries, or teaching aids. This paper exalnines students ' own perceptions of their courses and teachers in six departments at a British university, identifies the characteristics of those environments, and shows how contextual variables are related in the students ' minds to the ways they learn. The paper draws upon data from both a course perceptions questionnaire and from a series of semi-structured interviews.

The Concept of Learning Environment and its Relation to Student Learning.

There is no clear agreement in the literature as to what consti tutes an academic context or environment. For some investigators, it consists of rather crude attr ibutes such as types of degree courses offered, size, prox- imity to other institutions, source of finmace, and so on, in relation to the institution as a whole. A rather more sophisticated approach has been to study college environments either by investigating the opinions of their teachers (see for example, Halsey and Trow, 1971; Gaff mad Wilson, 1971), or by measuring s tudent behaviour such as informal interaction with staff or amount mad frequency of s tudent contr ibut ions in classes (see Astin, 1968).

But the approach to defining and measuring academic contexts which has gained most favour is that which uses students ' perceptions to compare different college environments. Most of this research has been American. Instruments have been developed by Stern (1970) and Pace (1967) to measure the social psychological char'dcteristics o f environments; students are invited to answer questionnaire items about their opinions of their teachers and colleagues and about the policies of the institution. A similar strategy has been to define college environments in terms of s tudent sub- cultures. A well-known model developed by Clark mad Trow (1966) con- trasts four sub-cultures defined in terms of students ' involvement with ideas (high or low) and identification with college (high or low). Peterson

413

(1965) was able to show that colleges differed considerably in the propor- tion of their students attaching themselves to each sub-culture. Long (1978) has related students ' evaluations of their college environment to each of tile types: students ' opinions of the advantages and disadvantages of the univer- sity were highly correlated with their subcultural membership.

A difficulty in most o f the American studies of students ' perceptions of college environments is that althouN1 they. may focus on the immediate context of a s tudent 's learning - how he sees his teachers, his subject, his academic tasks - they average out the differences between academic depart- ments aJ~d subject areas in order to compare the environments of entire institutions. European universities, however, are less heterogeneous than American ones. Students in British universities rarely have much contact with more than one or two academic departments. The relevant focus of analysis in this case is probably the main discipline they study or the one depar tment in which they spend most o f their time, rather than the univer- sity as a whole.

Investigations which deal with the context of learning defined by a depar tment are uncommon in the literature. Perhaps the most promising study was carried out by Gaff, Crombag, and Chang with a sample of stu- dents in four departments of a Dutch University (Gaff et al., 1976). They were able to identify distinctive "a tmospheres" in the different contexts; they also isolated groups of questionnaire items which had been answered in similar ways. More recently, Hermans (1979) has identified similar dimen- sions of departmental environments at another university in the Netherlands. In the earlier study, ten scales were derived, ranging from the amount of time students felt they must spend in course-related activities, through the personal at tention given to students in the different departments, to the extent to which the course programmes were [Jrescribed or defined by students themselves. Gaff et al. (1976) used the scales to identify educa- tional problems in the departments. They concluded that steps needed to be taken to offer more attractive learning environments if the depart- ments were not to suffer high rates of s tudent attrition.

A possible object ion to studies of the kind summarised above is that they do not show, either by students ' self-reports or by objective measures, that s tudents ' learning is related to their perceptions of the environment. Might s tudent performance be more closely related to characteristics of academic departments such as unit size and the type of staff employed? Do students know what a "good" learning environment is? Are they perhaps misled into equating learning with pleasure? These criticisms are not sup- ported by the most recent evidence. Hartnet t and Centra ( 1 9 7 7 ) a t t e m p t e d to relate s tudent performance in different academic fields to various charac- teristics o f the academic faculties in which the students studied. Criterion measures achievement tests showed large differences in the apparent "effec-

414

tiveness'" o f the different departments, which were selected from a number of different universities. Students ' pre-entry levels of achievement were controlled. Analysis of faculty-student ratios, faculty interest in teaching, faculty salaries, and depar tment size failed to demonstrate features consis- tently associated with effectiveness. The authors speculate that s tudents ' perceptions may be more important in explaining effectiveness; indeed, Centra (1976), among others, has shown that s tudent ratings of teaching effectiveness are positively related to mean student achievement.

The research we have so far mentioned has relied almost exclusively on questionnaire techniques for the collection of its data. A further group of studies has used the techniques o f participant observation, discussion, and unstructured or partly structured interviews to examine the relationship between students ' perceptions of the learning context and their approaches to learning. This work has provided some revealing insights into the powerful influence which students say the learning environment - and especially its assessment procedures - has on their learning.

One early study of this kind was carried out at Kansas University by Becker (Becket et al., 1968). Becker applies the idea of "situational adjust- men t" to the experience of the college student: students learn the require- ments of social situations and what makes for success in them, so that they tuna themselves into the kind of persons that the academic context demands. Becker argues that the academic situation requires attendance and written work, but does not reward students for showing intellectual involvement - even though the institution says that it does. Students ' approaches to learning become dominated by the "grade-point average perspective": high grades in assessment tasks are the most important goals. Students come to perceive a conflict between learning and grades and speak of using strategies to get good marks at the expense of understanding the material they are expected to learn. In this way the process of assessment comes to have the unintended consequence Of inhibiting rather than facilitating learning, and it is easy to see how one might extend this effect to teaching methods as well.

More recent research in Britain has supported and amplified Becker's findings, although the results are based on small samples. Miller and Parlett (1974), for example, found that the academic environment defined by examinations in a Scottish university led to the employment of distinctive strategies of adaptation by different students. The authors show that one group of students (labelled "cue-seeke~rs"), who went out of their way to make a favourable personal impression on staff, and who revised very selec- tively for examinations, obtained the. best degree results. This group of students was often uncomfor tably aware that these strategies were detri- mental to learning.

Becker, Miller and Parlett, and others (e.g., Snyder, 1971) emphasise in their studies the disjunction between the formal requirements of academic

415

environments (thought, creativity, competence, independent thinking, critical thinking) and the actual requirements as perceived by students (menlorisation, fact-gathering, conformity, rote learning). It is very interest- ing to compare this disparity with recent work, carried out in Sweden, on the approaches to learning used by students in reading academic articles (see, e.g., Marton 1975a: Marton and SfiljtS, 1976). Interviews of students revealed qualitatively different levels of processing of the texts. A "deep" approach involves concentrat ion on the meaning of the article and actil/e a t tempts to relate what it said to previous knowledge and the student 's personal life. In contrast, students using a "'surface" approach anxiously try to memorise parts of the text and treat it as a phenomenon isolated from themselves. The Swedish findings show that deep level processing is more likely to lead to a full understanding of a text than surface level processing. The notion of deep level processing shows a remarkable simi- lariW to what lecturers in many disciplines have described as a desirable goal of higher education the development of "critical thinking". If, as Becker and other researchers seem to be suggesting, there is a gap between the desired end and the ou tcome of teaching, assessment, and curriculum practices, then it is a matter of some urgency that we come to understand more about the links between students" approaches to learning and the context in which it takes place. That is the primary objective of the present research, and in addition to reporting findings from a study of students ' perceptions of departmental environments in the following pages, we shall �9 also look briefly at what students have said about the influence of the con- text o f a learning task on their approach to it.

The Course Perceptions Questio'nnaire

A questionnaire seemed to be an appropriate way of investigating the components used by students in a number of departments to describe academic environments. This questionnaire was designed with both theoretical and empirical considerations in mind. We shall not enter into discussion of the theoretical background to the analysis o f learning environments in this pa- per. The study of learning contexts is not remarkable for i ts theoretical depth, but Bernstein's concept o f frame strength (Bemstein, 1971), which refers to the amount of control over what may and may not be transmitted in the peda- gogical relationship, was one important part of the conceptual background to the present study. In addition, the recurrent notion of " rappor t" or teachers' understanding of students as a component of effective teaching and learning (see, e.g., Rogers, 1969) shaped to some extent the form of the questionnaire.

The questionnaire items were derived mainly from preliminary inter-

416

views of students in two of the departments which were to be investigated, and also from a previous survey of students ' course perceptions (Ramsden, 1976). The questionnaire was administered to second year students in six university departments: social science, applied science, natural science, two arts departments, and the School o f Independent Studies at Lancaster University. A total of 285 students completed the questionnaire: the average response rate was 66~, and in no depar tment did the rate fall below 52(7c.

The 47 items were sorted into scales reflecting hypothet ical dimen- sions in terms of which students were expected to characterise their learning environments. These dimensions were chosen after examining the results of the most closely corresponding previous study (Gaff et al., 1976) and in the light of the concepts of framing and staff understanding. Percentage responses to the items and item/scale correlations were calculated, and the relationships between the items were explored using the techniques of factor analysis. The details o f these procedures, and of the originally hypothesised dinlensions, will be discussed elsewhere. The factor structure proved to be closely related to the expected pattern and a subsequent study of 767 first- year students has shown the conqponents to be remarkably stable (Ramsden, 1979). After the factor analyses of the second-year sample, eight dimensions were isolated. They appear below in order of importance: the first and most important factor identified in the analyses was lecturers' understanding of students and commitment to good teaching, and the items in this factor go to make tip the first two scales listed.

DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Relationships with students

Comini tment to teaching

Workload

Formal teaching methods

Vocational relevance

Social climate

Clear goals and standards

Freedom in learning

Closeness of lecturer/student relationships: help and understanding shown to students.

Commitment of staff to improving teaching and to teaching students at a level appropriate to their current understanding.

�9 Pressure placed on students in terms of demands of the syllabus and assessment tasks.

Formality or informality of teaching and learning (e.g. lectures v. individual study).

Perceived relevance of courses to students ' careers. /)

Frequency and quality of academic and social relationships between students.

Extent to which standards expected of students are clear and unambiguous.

Amount of discretion possessed by students in choosing and organising academic work.

417

Learning Contexts in the Departments

The results of the course perceptions questionnaire show that students in the different departments see the process of learning and teaching in contrasting ways. Each department appears to possess a distinctive "atmo- sphere" or culture in which approaches to learning are realised.

A p p l i e d s c i e n c e - the process of learning is seen in a very formal way. Lectures and classes are more ilnportant than individual study as a means of learning: staff are somewhat aloof and they are unprepared to tackle topics at a level appropriate to students ' current understanding. But there are close and cooperative relationships between students with reference to their work, and the students think that their lecturers are prepared to take their suggestions into account when they are planning courses. The goals and standards set are particularly clear; students "know where they are going": the vocational relevance of the courses is high. But the workload students have to deal with is greater than in any of the other departments: 75r of the students think that there is too much work to get through.

N a t u r a l s c i e n c e - relationships between staff and students are some- what formal, and much learning takes place in timetabled classes. The staff, heavily involved in research activities, are not seen to be very friendly towards students. Unlike the applied science department, this departm.ent does not provide clear guidelines to students in the assessment standards it expects - 73% of students agree that it is hard to know how well they are doing. Nevertheless, the courses are thought to be vocationally relevant. Students are closely supervised in their work and they have little choice over methods of study, but in spite of these constraints the workload is

not excessive. S o c i a l s c i e n c e - in this department, students think that staff provide

an infonnal and cooperative learning environment : contacts outside formal classes are frequent and staff give the impression of being willing to learn from students. But the students are unsure about the extent to which this informality is carried over into genuine help with academic problems. Much learning takes place by individual study, although a lot of time is also devoted to classes. Students think that they have too little time to concentrate on the subjects which really interest them: they are also most likely of all to think that they have little choice over how they want to learn. The courses are of limited vocational relevance. There are close relationships between

students. , 4 r t s ( 1 ) - in this department the courses are thought to bear little or

no relationship to students ' future careers. The workload is not too high, but students would like more time to spend on their own interests. The goals of the students ' work are unambiguous, but students find it hard to know how closely they are reaching them: in this respect, the context here is

418

similar to the natural science department. Relationships with staff are in- formal (although less so than in social science), and the lecturers are very willing to give help with study problems. Students have a lot of choice over the methods and content of their studies. Of all the departments, this one most requires students to leana by means of individual s tudy: only 49 of students think that you can learn nearly everything you need to know from the classes and lectures, without doing much further reading (in contrast to the applied science department, where 619; of students agree with this statement).

A r t s ( 2 ) -- individual study is felt to be of great importance as a way of learning; all the students agree that the department expects them to spend much time studying on their own. There is also a good deal of choice in the methods and content of the students ' work. Thus far, this depar tment is very similar to the first of the arts departments. But unlike that department , relationships with staff are fairly formal - much more so than in the social science department, although less so tham ira the two science departments. Moreover, assessment standards are clear but the goals of study are rather vague. Pressure on students to work is low, however, and staff are highly commit ted to teaching. There is a good social climate.

l n d e p e n d e J t t S t u d i e s .-- in the School of Independent Studies at Lan- caster, students do not follow a prescribed course within a particular disci- pline, but decide their own topics of study in consultation with their tutors. The questionnaire results show that the department is thought to provide a particularly supportive environment for learning: staff are friendly, respon- sive to students ' suggestions for changes to teaching methods, and they make real efforts to understand difficulties students may be having with their work. The courses are thouNlt to have little vocational relevance, but only 10% of the students (a lower proportion than in any other department) think that most of what they are learning will be of no use to them when they leave university. Students think that they can concentrate on the sub- jects which most interest them and there is not too much work to get through. Not surprisingly, students in this department think that they are working in a context which permits a high degree of freedom in learning. But while none of these benefits come easily,.the advantages of this environ- ment are counterbalanced by a poor social climate and by an absence of clarity ira the goals and standards expected of students. In these last respects, the environment is similar to that idefitified at another independent studies department at a British polytechnic (Percy and Ramsden, 1979).

Uses and Limitations of the Questionnaire

The course perceptions questionnaire has identified components of the

419

learning environment in several academic departments and has shown how each context makes different demands on the way students learn. Some of the differences between the departments are related to the type of discipline which they teach. A fairly personalised approach to teaching and learning is common in the arts and social science departments, for example, while the nature of the subject-matter in the sciences seems to give rise to more formal teaching methods and less personal relationships between staff, and students. The applied science and independent studies departments clearly stand at opposite ends of a continuum of student v. teacher control over the transmission of knowledge. Knowledge in the former department is strongly framed (Bernstein, 1971): clearly defined, its boundaries set to a consider- able extent by professional standards, and systematically transmitted. In independent studies, on the other hand, framing of knowledge is extremely weak; exactly what constitutes "satisfactory" knowledge is unclear, the methods and goals of learning are ambiguous, and students are largely left (notwithstanding a high degree of staff understanding) to find their own way througll their courses. While quite different approaches to studying are expected of students in these two extreme cases (and while, no doubt, each develops different kinds of learning skills), each has its own advantages and disadvantages as an environment for learning.

Other differences between the departments suggest students' evalua- tions of the contexts in which they work. Students who feel that they have too little time to concentrate on their own interests, or who think that lecturers prepare their teaching inadequately, or who are unsure about how their work will be assessed, certainly appear to be displaying aspects of dissatisfaction with their learning environments.

Examination of the relationship between perceptions of learning environments and students' approache s to learfiing cannot, however, be carried out effectively by means of questionnaires alone. The course per- ceptions questionnaire provides a broad but general picture of learning contexts and their components; in order to approach the fine detail of an individual student's interaction with his environment, and to ensure that the dimensions identified above really are ways in which students in different departments characterise and evaluate their learning environments, we need additional methods.

Interviews of Students

For these reasons, semi-structured interviews of a sample of students (approximately 10 in each department) were carried out. The chief aim of the interviews has been to see whether qualitatively different learning strategies (see Marton, 1975a) are linked in students' minds with different

420

con tex t s o f learning. By " c o n t e x t o f learn ing" we mean, in this instance,

no t only the inf luence (or lack o f inf luence) o f teaching and course organi-

sat ion, but also the loca t ion o f a specific task within the b a c k g r o u n d

knowledge and intercsts o f the s tudent . S tuden ts were asked to c o m m e n t

on the s t rengths and weaknesses o f their d e p a r t m e n t and its courses, and

also to talk in detail abou t their approaches to par t icular learning tasks.

These included, as approprqate, essays, scientif ic problems, reports , reading,

and examina t ion prepara t ion.

It is clear f rom the interviews that the groupings o f i tems identif ied in

the course percept ions ques t ionnai re by item analysis are no t mere c o m p u t a -

tional artefacts . Moreover , s tudents cons tan t ly relate con tex tua l variables

(such as the qual i ty o f their relat ionships with their teachers and the a m o u n t

o f pressure placed upon them by assessment tasks) to their approaches to

learning. A natural science s tudent , for example , describes the inf luence o f

assessment by final examina t ions on his approach as follows:

I look at [the topic] and I think to myself, "'Well. I can do that if I can be bothered to hunt through hundreds of textbooks and do the work" .- and you sort of relate that to the value of the work in the course, which is virtually zero because it's so much exam assessment... I just don't bother with it until the exams come around. . . my revision is basically for the exams, purely and simply aimed at passing the exams without bothering too much about studying the subject (Natural science, student 1 2).

While a social science s tuden t echoes Miller and Parlet t ' s "cue - seek ing"

s tudents in his response to an env i ronm en t o f c o n t i n u o u s assessment:

With that essay I was just discussing, that reference group one, I wrote for, with a, the image of a marker in mind, the personality, the person. I find that's important, to know who's going to be marking your paper . . , you see an essay is an expres- sion of thought, really, but that's not what they're after, they're after a search through the library, I think, and a cribbing of other people's ideas (Social science, student 7).

A n o t h e r social scientist describes the i nducemen t to surface level processing

which the periodic tests held in his d e p a r t m e n t offer :

I hate to say it, but what you've got to do is have a list of the "facts"; you write down ten important points and memgrise those, then you'll do all right in the t e s t . . , if you can give a bit of factual information - so and so did that, and concluded that - for two sides of writing, then you'll get a good mark (Social science, student 5).

Many o f tile s tudents in the social science and arts depa r tmen t s were crit-

ical o f wha t they felt to be the excessive formal i ty o f the assessment sys tems

and tile lack o f flexibility in choos ing assignments. "There isn' t t ime for

421

( t h i n k i n g a b o u t w h a t i n t e r e s t s y o u ) : y o u ' v e g o t to s t i c k t o t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d

p l o u g h t h r o u g h i t " is a t y p i c a l c o m m e n t . In c o n t r a s t , i t was i n t e r e s t i n g

to see h o w s t u d e n t s in t h e v o c a t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d a p p l i e d s c i e n c e d e p a r t m e n t

t a c k l e d the p r o b l e m o f a h i g h e r w o r k l o a d . As we have seen f r o m the q u e s -

t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s , s t u d e n t s in th i s d e p a r t m e n t s t o o d o u t f r o m the r e s t in

t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t a n d t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f c l e a r a s s e s s m e n t

g o a l s a n d s t a n d a r d s . G i v e n th is level o f a g r e e m e n t , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t

the i n t e r v i e w s r e v e a l e d t h a t s t u d e n t s w a n t e d m o r e p r e s s u r e on t h e m f r o m

t h e i r t u t o r s to c o m p l e t e p i e c e s o f w o r k , r a t h e r t h a n m o r e c h o i c e o v e r assess-

m e n t t asks . T h e r e was an i m p r e s s i o n o f a c lose m e s h i n g o f a ims , a p p r o a c h e s

to l e a r n i n g , a n d p e r c e p t i o n s o f t he d e p a r t m e n t f r o m the a p p l i e d sc i en t i s t s "

i n t e r v i e w s w h i c h was q u i t e a b s e n t f r o m the i n t e r v i e w s o f s t u d e n t s in the less

f o r m a l l y s t r u c t u r e d d e p a r t m e n t s .

S t u d e n t s in all o f the d e p a r t m e n t s m a d e r e f e r e n c e in t h e i n t e r v i e w s to

a s p e c t s o f s t a f f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i r l e a r n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d e m p h a s i s e d

the i n l l u e n c e o f t h e i r t e a c h e r s ' a p p r o a c h e s on t h e i r de s i r e to l ea rn a n d t h e i r

w a y s o f g o i n g a b o u t s t u d y i n g . T h e f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t s e x e m p l i f y s t u d e n t s '

c o n l m e n t s :

I find that the courses I do most work on are the courses where I get on with the tutors best and enjoy the seminars, b e c a u s e . . , a tutor can put you off the sub- ject . . . some of them don' t like students, so they're not interested in what stu- dents have to say unless it 's relevant to their approach (Arts 2, student 38).

If they [tutors] have enthusiasm, then they really fire their own students with tile subject, and the students really pick it u p . . . l 'm really good at and enjoy [one course] , but that 's only because a particular tutor I've had has been so en- thusiastic that he's given me an enthusiasm for i t . . . (Arts 2, student 6).

Recently we were doing Fourier analysis, and the ,lecturer mentioned in passing that it was something which they used when they transmit moon pictures back to e a r t h . . , that makes a lot of difference, you can see it being u s e d . . . Another example he quoted was about why when you bang a drum you get lots of different sounds rather than when you, say, play a violin you .just get the one note . . . he said, if you look at this you can see why - and he was right, you could see why; it did make sense (Natural science, student 3).

1 try to get to know [staff] a bit. I just find it a lot easier, 1 feel happier about my work -- if there's something wrong I can go and talk about it. That 's quite impor- tant to me (Arts 1, student 7).

My criticisms will be very closely aligned t o . . . the lack of empathy that some of the staff have about the ability levels of the students relative to their subject . . . In some of the areas we're talked at at a very high level. So you can' t at tach any- thing that you've been told to something you already know, which of course is a very important point in l e a r n i n g . . , they've gone so far into their own area that they've forgotten that we know nothing, essentially, compared with them (Social science, student 7).

4 2 2

The concepts are really difficult anyway. It usually takes, I think most people like, 1 certainly like to sit down and go at my own speed. Now the lecturers certainly assume that we know it and they just keep g o i n g . . , once you get behind it, you know, you can't really get back on terms (Applied science, s tudent l ).

I think a lot of the [lecturers] are just not particularly interested in you. I mean there are some who a r e . . , but some tutors, you know, just don ' t really bother if you learn or not; they just prefer t6 sit there and wait for you to think of what you don ' t know - I mean, if you knew what you didn ' t know you 'd probably learn it anyway. I've got a tu tor like that at the m o m e n t . . , it 's no good at all (Natural science, s tudent 14).

You give an essay in - 1 gave in two at the beginning of the second term and I didn' t get those back till this term . . . you know, it 's a bit difficult when you ' re writing the next essay, because you want to know where you've gone wrong and the points that have been all r i g h t . . , by the time you've got it back after waiting a whole term you've forgotten what it 's all about and it doesn' t really mean much then (Arts 2, student 31).

I certainly don ' t like it if you get tutorials where the guy just comes along and sits down and makes you stand up and do the work on the blackboard. Usually he picks on people that can't do it, which I think is terrible because you get stuck up at the blackboard and made to look a fool, and it switches you right o f f . . . I think I 'm not going to do that if this guy's going to do that to me, because [ don ' t learn anything; nobody else learns anything because it takes you so long to do one question; and it makes you very unhappy with that particular course, so I lose interest in the course (Natural science, student 12).

T h e c o m m e n t s o f t h e s t u d e n t s a b o v e i l l u s t r a t e a n d e x p a n d the c o n c e p t

o f s t a f f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s t u d e n t s ' l e a r n i n g n e e d s w h i c h was i d e n t i f i e d in the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e sca les o f C o m m i t m e n t to T e a c h i n g a n d R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h

S t u d e n t s . I t is p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g to see h o w s t u d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y c o n -

t r a s t t he d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s o f s t a f f in t he s a m e d e p a r t m e n t : t he c o u r s e

p e r c e p t i o n s q u e s t i o n n a i r e c a n n o t , o f c o u r s e , r evea l such d i f f e r e n c e s .

It w o u l d be p o s s i b l e to i l l u s t r a t e e a c h o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s i d e n t i f i e d

in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t u d y in a s i m i l a r w a y . I t m a y be m o r e f r u i t f u l a t t h i s

s t age , h o w e v e r , to e x p l o r e t he e f f e c t s o f the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t o f a p a r t i c -

u l a r l e a r n i n g t a sk on a s t u d e n t ' s a p p r o a c h to it. We m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r t h e

w o r k o f M a r t o n a n d his c o l l e a g u e s on leve ls o f p r o c e s s i n g o f r e a d i n g m a t e -

r ials . A n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s in t he p r e s e n t s t u d y s h o w s t h a t t he c o n c e p t

o f d e e p and s u r f a c e l eve l s o f p r o c e s s i n g is a p p l i c a b l e a l so to t a s k s s u c h as ) .

essay w r i t i n g a n d p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g in s c i e n c e . T h e r e s e e m t o be t h r e e w a y s

in w h i c h a d e e p level a p p r o a c h is m a n i f e s t e d : a t e n d e n c y on t h e p a r t o f t he

s t u d e n t to r e l a t e t h e t a sk to p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e ; a de s i r e t o m a k e ac t i ve

a t t e m p t s to r e l a t e the d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f a t a s k to e a c h o t h e r o r to o t h e r

t a s k s ; an i n t e n t i o n to i m p o s e a s t r u c t u r e on t h e w h o l e t a s k a n d t h i n k a b o u t

i ts m e a n i n g . In a s u r f a c e level a p p r o a c h t o a t a sk , t h e s t u d e n t i n d i c a t e s an

i n t e n t i o n to t r e a t the l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l as an i s o l a t e d , e l e m e n t e d p h e n o m -

423

enon ; a p p r o a c h e s the task unre f lec t ive ly or passively ; and m a y try to m e m o r i s e

the mater ia l . These ca tegor ies r ep resen t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f M a r t o n ' s own

c lass i f ica t ion o f ind ica to r s o f deep and surface levels o f process ing, which

re fe r red solely to social science s t u d e n t s ' desc r ip t ions o f a p p r o a c h e s to

reading academic art icles (Mar ton , 1975b) .

The in te rv iews also m a k e it clear tha t a s t uden t o f t en shows ind ica t ions

o f d i f f e ren t levels o f p rocess ing o f d i f f e ren t tasks. This is t rue for b o t h the

arts and the science s tuden t s , a l though the ar ts s t uden t s are r a the r m o r e

l ikely to indica te cons i s t ency in the i r approaches . This suppor t s Biggs'

a r g u m e n t (Biggs, 1970) tha t s t udy s trategies in science are more closely

t ied to the na tu re o f the specif ic task. The var iables which a p p e a r to exe r t

m o s t inf luence on a s t u d e n t ' s level o f process ing in b o t h arts and science

are the s t u d e n t ' s b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f the field and the s t u d e n t ' s level o f in teres t in the task. The f o r m e r appears to be more i m p o r t a n t in scient i f ic

subjec ts and the la t ter more i m p o r t a n t in the arts and social sciences. In the

fo l lowing ex t r ac t a na tura l science s t uden t descr ibes h o w his p rev ious knowl - edge o f a t y p e o f p r o b l e m enables him to take a deep level a p p r o a c h , while

his weakness in a basic m a t h e m a t i c a l c o n c e p t makes his a p p r o a c h to a n o t h e r

par t o f the same ques t ion anxious , passive, and superf icial :

It was like one of the questions from a previous course, which I could relate. It was a Shroedinger equation for a particle in a box, which we'd solved generally before in chemistry, so I could relate it, 1 could see a picture of what 1 wanted, I knew basically what sort of answer l should get, and from that I could work my way through i t . . . The other bit was different; I couldn't do it. Basically I gave up with it, because it was a function, which I've never really under s tood . . . I looked at it and I thought "That looks complicated" . . . it was very short, it looked like it would need a lot of rearranging. . . (Natural science, student 6).

Here , an ar ts s t uden t , having descr ibed a deep level a p p r o a c h to her

essays in one par t o f her course , con t ras t s this wi th a subjec t in which she

is less in te res ted :

It's a bit confusing, [this subject]. When it comes to writing essays, because I 'm not very interested in it, I tend to rush through the books I 'm reading for the essays, so I don't really understand it when I've finished reading. And because there's such a lot of information I think you can either oversimplify or get into too much detail, l think I tend to oversimplify (Arts 2, student 31 ).

It seems unneces sa ry to e l abora t e on the po in t tha t b o t h b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e and level o f in teres t are m u c h in f luenced by the b r o a d e r con- t ex tua l var iables o f course o rgan i sa t ion and t eacher s ' c o m m i t m e n t to he lp ing

the i r s t uden t s to learn. A s t u d e n t ' s personal c o m m i t m e n t to a top ic o f

s t udy , pa r t i cu la r ly one he has chosen fo r h imsel f , m a y also inf luence his

a p p r o a c h to s tudying . Here an i n d e p e n d e n t s tudies s t u d e n t descr ibes two

con t r a s t i ng a p p r o a c h e s to read ing and essay wri t ing:

424

In rcading a particular bit of the book that I thought was relevant I was relating it to the overall arguments within that book . . . and also relating it to the overall directions of the independent studies project I was doing, But that particular approach was a product of my desire to sort of do a bit of creative, original work. Itad l been writing a straight essay, which 1 did in my first un i t . . . I probably would have just, sort of, taken out the main points and strung them together . . . there's a definite difference between reading a book with the objective of simply summarising the argument and reading a book with the objective of actually using those arguments for your own ends (Independent studies, student 7).

We have concentra ted above on differences in approach in relation to the context of learning tasks rather than on differences between individual

students. But ira analysing the interviews it has become clear that one small

group of students stands out from the majority. These students are seemingly less negatively influenced by the course and departmental con tex t than the

rest, make special efforts to use assessment systems to their own ends, have a singleminded assurance that they will do well in their work, and are often ext remely successful. Other research studies have identified similarly moti- vated students. Wankowski (1973) describes a type o f "Highly successful composed s tudent" : "An introverted and generally stable person with an above average admission grade and a reasonable outl ine o f his future ca- r e e r . . . [with] a deep sense o f inner confidence that things will go right in the end. Confidence so great that even a trespass against the dem~mds of l o g i c . . , does not ruffle his composure" . Entwistle and Wilson's (1977) "highly motivated, stable scientists" and "hardworking, syllabus-free arts s tudents" also show similarities with thisgroup. So too do Miller and Parlett 's "cue-seekers" (Miller and Parlett, 1974).

Miller and Parlett 's study, however, appears to have identified a special case of a more general at t i tude towards academic work and assessment tasks.

The interviews carried out in the present investigation support the view that the type of departmental context imposes limits on the kinds o f tactics which this conf ident group o f students can use. In the social science depart- ment , these students w.ere not unlike Miller and Parlett 's cue-seekers: they tried to make good impressions on staff and carefully selected their assign- ment and revision topics to coincide with the implicit messages sent out by

tutors. Cue-seeking may be effective ira a fairly informal and personalised context o f learning, but it is probably counterproduct ive in more formally organised departments . Some studentas in the applied science depar tment were aware that a t tempts to make good personal impressions and to seek out favoured examinat ion topics might damage their credibility in the eyes o f the staff, and used o ther methods o f maximising assessment outcomes, including paying special a t tent ion to the detailed requirements of a tu tor when presenting written work, mad the meticulous study of past examina- tion papers. A more generally applicable description of this assured ap-

425

proach to assessment tasks, manifested in different contexts, is "strategic" rather than cue-seeking. The most striking single characteristic o f students who use this approach is the ability to adapt, in a positive way, to the de- mmlds made by the context o f learning, so that what would appear as adversity" to most students is made to work towards the strategic stu- dent 's goals - whether they be essentially academic or vocational.

Conclusions

1. DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

There seems to be little doubt about the validity and generality of the more important dimensions identified in the item analysis of the course per- ceptions questionnaire. This is especially true for the components of Com- mitment to Teaching + Relationships with Students, Workload, and Fonnal Teaching Methods + Vocational Relevance. The components of students ' perceptions of the immediate academic environment are consistent with data from the interviews, and, moreover, are closely related to the only other directly comparable study (Gaff et al., 1976). Above all, students value an environment in which their teachers make genuine efforts to .help them to learn.

2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

The course perceptions questionnaire effectively distinguishes between different academic departments as contexts of learning. The different depar tments appear from the results to require contrasting approaches to learning from their students: the degree to which these differences are a consequence of disciplinary differences is not yet clear. The differences between the environments do, however, appear to support the view that the concept o f framing (Bemstein, 1971) is a useful means of distinguishing different contexts of learning. Moreover, it is not hard to infer from the results the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each depar tment in the eyes of its students. Thus the questionnaire acts not only as a measure of students ' perceptions but also as a device by which students can evaluate their courses. Whether those who organise those courses are prepared to take account of students ' comments in their future planning is another matter altogether.

3. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CONTEXT ON STUDENT LEARNING

It would be surprising indeed if students thought that staff understand-

426

ing of their learning needs was an unimportant componen t of the learning environment of a department. What is remarkable about the present findings, however, is the extreme importance at tached by the s tudents to this dimen- sion. The significant loadings in the first factor in the item analyses were without exception attached to items referring to teachers' understanding of students and tutors ' teaching effectiveness. A supportive atmosphere for learning is an elusive quality: but one of the things which students seem to be saying is that such an atmosphere is more likely to exist if lec- turers show humility rather than arrogance towards their students. Students emphasised the critical importance of the teaching and assessment environ- ment in the interviews. A tutor wi thout a commitment to teaching his sub- ject might put students of f studying it, perhaps for ever. Enthusiasm on the part o f a lecturer encouraged them to put more effort into a subject and enjoy it more. The careful use of analogies helped them to see the meaning underlying a mathematical abstraction. Failure to reach the level o f students in a lecture made it difficult to learn. Threatening teaching environments creates anxiety and students learn nothing.

These contextual variables, and those appearing in the questionnaire items, influence the student 's level of interest in a topic and also have a bearing on the background knowledge which is used to help understand a new problem. And, as we have shown, whether a s tudent 's approach to a learning task is to tackle it in a superficial way or to strive for meaning is very much affected by his perception of that task, which in turn is influ- enced by level o f interest, personal commitment , and previous knowledge. The nature of these linkages is still somewhat inchoate, and future research will try to examine them in more detail.

References

Astin, A. W. (1968). The College Environment. Washinton, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Becker, H. S., Geer, B., and Hughes, E. C. (1968). Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life. New York: Wiley.

Bernstein, B. B. (I 971). "On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge," in M. F. D. Young, ed., Knowledge and Control. pp. 47-69. London: Collier-Macmillan.

Biggs, J. B. (1970). "Faculty patterns in study~ behaviour," Australian Journal of Psychol- ogy 22 (2): 161-174.

Centra, J. A. (1976). "Student Ratings of Instruction and their Relationship to Student Learning" Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.

Clark, B. R. and Trow, M. (1966). "The Organisational Context" in T. M. Newcomb and E. K. Wilson, eds., College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Entwistle, N. J. and Wilson, J. D. (1977). Degrees o f Excellence: The Academic Achieve- ment Game. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

427

Gaff, J. G. and Wilson, R. C. (1971). "Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary study," Journal o f Higher Education 42(3): 186-201.

Gaff, J. G., Crombag, H. F. M., and Chang, T. M. (1976). "Environments for learning in a Dutch university," Higher Education 5 : 285-299.

Halsey, A. H. and Trow, M. (1971). The British Academics. London: Faber and Faber. Hartnett, R. T. and Centra, J. A. (1977). "The effects of academic departments on

student learning," Journal of Higher Education 48(5): 491-507. Hermans, B. M. J. (1979). "Student and System: Academic Success and Study Problems

in Relation with Characteristics of the Academic Environment and of the Students," in E. A. van Trotsenburg, ed.. Higher Educatioli." A Field o f Stud),. 5 vols. Bern: Verlag Peter Lang.

Long, S. (1978). "Student types and the evaluation of the university," Higher Education 6: 417-436.

Marton, F. (1975a). "What Does it Take to Learn?" in N. J. Entwistle and D. J. Hounsell, eds., How Students Learn. Lancaster: IPCE.

Marton, F. (1975b). Non-verbatim Learning I: Level o f Processing and Level o f Outcome. Report No. 39, Institute of Education, University of G6teborg.

Marton, F. and S~ilj~5, R. (1976). "On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process" British Journal o f Educational Psychology 46: 4-11.

Miller, C. M. L. and Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the Mark: A Stud), o f the Exanlination Game. London: SRHE.

Pace, C. R. (1967). College and University Environment Scales. Princeton, N. J.: Educa- tional Testing Service.

Percy, K. A. and Ramsden, P. (1979). Freedom and Learning in Higher Education. (pro- visional title) Guild ford: SRHE. (forthcoming).

Peterson, R. E. (1965). "On a Typology of College Students" Research Bulletin, RB 65-9. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.

Ramsden, P. (1976). Course Evaluation in Higher Education. Unpublished MPhil disser- tation, CNAA.

Ramsden, P. (1979). "Identifying dimensions of learning environments in higher educa- tion," (in preparation).

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. Sny der, B. R. (1971). The Hidden Curriculum. New York: "Knopf. Stern, C. G. (1970). People in Context. New York: Wiley. Wankowski, J. A. (1973). Temperament, Motivation and A eademic Achievement. Birming-

ham: University of Birmingham Educational Survey.