Review by: Jenert, Tobias (2008-05-06)

Entwistle and Peterson set out to give a comprehensive overview of concepts describing influences on student learning in higher education. The aim of their literature review is to integrate these concepts into a model of how students react to different learning environments, according to individual preferences. From this vantage point they draw some conclusions for the design of so called "powerful" learning environments.

The authors start by introducing the most important concepts dealing with influences on student learning. Their review of literature covers

• conceptions of knowledge and learning (how students conceive of knowledge and learning and how these conceptions may change),
• learning orientation (differences in what students try to achieve with their studying),
• approaches to learning and studying (strategies students use in their own learning and studying), and
• modes of regulation (whether learning processes are internally or externally regulated).

Each of these concepts is presented with the original study that introduced it. Further (and more recent) empirical research is quoted to give a differentiated picture of the state of research.

While in the first part of the article Entwistle and Peterson differentiate the abovementioned concepts, in the second part they try explain the interrelationships between conceptions, orientations and approaches to learning. They quote studies suggesting that conceptions are developed through experiences with teaching and learning and, for their part, subsequently influence apporaches to learning.

In the literature the authors identify two prototypical patterns that influence how students approach learning. Different forms of study behaviour are assumed to lead to different levels of understanding:

The first is characterised by a simple, dualistic conception of knowledge as either right or wrong. Learning is conceived as "intake" of factual knowledge. This corresponds with an extrinsic learning orientation (aimed at obtaining formal certification) and a largely externally regulated "surface approach" to learning. In general, this kind of learning results in a low level of understanding, i. e. a limitation to canonical knowledge and facts.

The second prototype, in contrast, combines a complex, relativistic conception of knowledge that acknowledges the need for reasoning and argumentation. Learning is conceived as an active and constructive process. This corresponds with an intrinsic learning orientation and a largely self-regulated deep approach to learning. Consequently, this kind of learning leads to a high level of understanding, i. e. deep insight into a subject matter and consideration of multiple perspectives.

The authors hasten to add that such a distinction is not to be interpreted as a typology of learners but rather an analytic categorisation of the range of comments students have made about their own learning. "There will thus always be mixed motives for entering higher education and choosing a particular set of courses" (p. 413).

Finally, Entwistel and Peterson link conceptions of knowledge and learning to how students respond to learning environments they encounter. In general, students with deep approaches to learning tend to have a more positive perception of the teaching they meet, while students with surface approaches tend to stress negative aspects in their teaching. Although conceptions of learning are relatively stable and resistant to change, the authors quote empirical evidence suggesting that didactic design can have some influence and move students from sur-face to deep approaches to learning. However, it cannot be expected that single experiences with innovative learning environments will cause a fundamental conceptual change concerning learning. To support conceptual change and to foster a deep approach to learning, the authors argue for learning environments that not only aim at the active construction of knowledge and meaningful learning but also encourage learners to reflect upon their own conceptions of learning.

Entwistle and Peterson's article provides a concise overlook of the different concepts dealing with influences on student learning. Some of the terms used in the article, however, (e. g. "understanding", "study behavior") could have been more thoroughly defined as they leave room for interpretation. The strength of this literature review is its integrative approach that links various concepts. Finally, the article is a good reminder that the effect of a learning environment cannot be predicted merely looking at the didactic design. To understand students' responses to didactic interventions we also have to look at their previous experiences in education and their resulting views of what learning is.