ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING—II OUTCOME AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEARNER'S CONCEPTION OF THE TASK

By F. Marton, R. Säaljö. 1976

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Guo-Li Chiou
2. Marcus Crede
3. Jyh‐Chong Liang
4. Paul Ginns
5. U. Lucas
6. Richard B. Dull
7. K. Scouller
8. N. Kuncel

Citations in the corpus

• The writing approaches of university students (2001, unknown): “Drawing on studies of text comprehension (e.g. Kirby 1988; Marton and Saljo 1976), Biggs (1988a) articulated a Process x Levels framework to include consideration of writers’ levels of ideation (e.g. thematic, paragraph, sentence, word level, grammatical) as related to processes in writing along a…”
• The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. (2001, background): “By studying how students perceived a particular reading task and then went about learning it, Marton and Säljö (1976a, 1976b) came up with the powerful idea of ‘approach to learning’, which became the point of departure for the emerging conceptual framework known generically as ‘student approaches…”
• Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: a phenomenographic study (2001, methodology): “Marton and Säljö (1976a) identi ed deep and surface approaches in relation to intentions.”
• How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes (2009, unknown): “These sorts of outcomes occur when students adopt a deep, rather than a surface approach to their learning (Marton & Säljö, 1976, 1984).”
• Who Prefers What? Disciplinary Differences in Students' Preferred Approaches to Teaching and Learning Styles (2000, background): “One group of researchers (Biggs, 1978, 1979; Entwistle, 1990; Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Marton and Säljö, 1976; Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981) distinguishes between three main approaches to the study process, each of which includes an affective (motivational) component and a cognitive (strategy) co”
• Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? (2011, unknown): “This, in turn, promotes ‘‘deep’’ and not ‘‘surface’’ approaches to learning (Biggs 1987; Entwistle 1981; Marton and Saljo 1976a, b; Ramsden 1992).”