students' conceptions of learning in an engineering context

Higher Education38: 291–309, 1999.© 1999Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

291

Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context

DELIA MARSHALL 1, MIKE SUMMERS2 & BRIAN WOOLNOUGH2

1Physics Department, University of The Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa;2University of Oxford, UK

Abstract. Research on student learning in higher education has highlighted the central rolethat students’ conceptions of learning play in influencing their approaches to learning. Thisarticle reports on a study of conceptions of learning among engineering students on a one-year foundation course. Students were interviewed about their conceptions of learning at threeintervals during their academic year. The data was analysed using a phenomenographic per-spective and from the data five qualitatively different conceptions of learning were identified.The resulting characterisation of these conceptions of learning is presented using excerptsfrom the interviews and some implications for student learning are discussed.

Introduction

Students’ conceptions of learning have recently become the focus of muchresearch on student learning in higher education. These studies – framed bya phenomenographic perspective – have shown that students come to learn-ing situations with very different preconceived views of what is meant by‘learning’ (for example, Säljö 1979; Marton et al. 1993). These views aboutlearning – or conceptions of learning – have been shown by other studies toprovide important insights into the ways students choose to approach theirlearning (for example, see Rossum and Schenck 1984; Martin and Ramsden1987).

The seminal work on conceptions of learning was done by Säljö (1979).He asked people from a range of educational backgrounds and age-groupsthe question ‘what do you actually mean by learning?’. From the analysis ofhis data, five qualitatively different, and hierarchically related, conceptionsof learning could be identified. Learning was conceived of as: (1) increasingone’s knowledge, (2) memorising, (3) acquisition of facts, procedures etc.which can be retained and/or utilised in practice, (4) abstraction of meaningand (5) an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality. Säljö’scategorisation of students’ conceptions of learning showed similarities withPerry’s work (1970) on intellectual development of students during collegeyears, which traced a shift towards greater relativism in thinking and personal

292 DELIA MARSHALL ET AL.

Table 1. Conceptions of learning (Marton et al. 1993;Säljö 1979)

Learning as increasing one’s knowledge

Learning as memorising and reproducing

Learning as applying

Learning as understanding

Learning as seeing something in a different way

Learning as changing as a person

interpretation. A subsequent study by Marton et al. (1993) described the samefive conceptions of learning that Säljö (1979) did in his study, but, in addition,identified a sixth conception of learning – ‘learning as change as a person’.The Säljö framework, as modified by Marton et al. (1993), is summarised inTable 1.

The first three conceptions are all essentially reproductive, and reflect alower-level, quantitative view of learning. The latter three conceptions, bycontrast, reflect a higher-level, qualitative view of learning as an active pro-cess of seeking meaning, leading to some kind of transformation in one’sview of things, or of the self.

The Marton et al. (1993) study, like that of Säljö (1979), was situatedwithin the phenomenographic tradition, as developed by the Gothenburg Uni-versity phenomenographic group (see Marton and Säljö 1976; Marton 1988).This research approach aims to characterise the qualitatively different ways inwhich people experience, or conceptualise, phenomena in the world aroundthem. In the case of these phenomenographic studies on students’ conceptionsof learning, the aim is to characterise students’ conceptualisations of – orways of experiencing – ‘learning’.1 Several subsequent investigations haveaffirmed the essence of the qualitative characterisations of students’ concep-tions of learning as detailed by Säljö’s original study (see, for example, vanRossum and Schenck 1984; Giorgi 1986; Martin and Ramsden 1987; Watkinsand Regmi 1992). In addition, the sixth conception of learning identified byMarton et al. (1993) – ‘change as a person’ – has also been supported by otherstudies. For example, studies by Pratt (1992), Watkins and Regmi (1992)and Dahlin and Regmi (1997) have identified a conception of learning – inwhich learning is viewed as some sort of personal change – that is qualita-tively similar to the sixth conception of learning in the Marton et al. (1993)study.

Despite the overall similarities in the conceptions of learning which havebeen identified in these various phenomenographic studies, recent studies

STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING 293

seem to indicate that, within the conceptions, variations may occur thatare context-dependent. For example, studies examining the significance ofcultural contextto students’ conceptions of learning have examined con-ceptions of learning in so-called ‘non-Western’ countries such as HongKong (Marton, Watkins and Tang 1997), Nepal (Watkins and Regmi 1992)and China (Pratt 1992). These studies suggest that, while conceptions oflearning identified in different cultural contexts seem to have overall simi-larities, the cultural context may determined ‘which aspects of the [learning]experience are accentuated and which are left in the background’ (Dah-lin and Regmi 1997). In a similar vein, other studies have examined theextent to which students’ conceptions of learning are dependent on theirparticular educational context. For example, studies by Eklund-Myrskog(1998) and Tynjälä (1997) illustrate how the educational contexts of stu-dents may influence their conceptions of learning. In summary, then, phe-nomenographic studies of conceptions of learning may identify the sameoverall conceptions but these conceptions may be characterised by differ-ing categories of description within different cultural or educational con-texts.

While many of the phenomenographic studies on students’ conceptions oflearning have involved humanities or social science students, relatively fewhave included science or engineering students. The aim of this study, then,was to characterise the qualitative differences and similarities in the concep-tions of learning held by engineering students. These conceptions of learninghave been shown in previous studies to have a significant influence on the waystudents choose to approach their learning (Van Rossum and Schenck 1984)and hence, on the quality of their learning outcomes (Marton and Säljö 1976).It would therefore seem critical for educators of science or engineering stu-dents to have insights into the nature of the conceptions of academic learningthat their students have, and how these conceptions manifest themselves asstudents interact with their courses.

Method

The study

The study reported here was part of a larger study (Marshall 1995), whichinvolved Engineering Foundation Programme students at a UK university.The study had a qualitative and longitudinal research design, and examineddevelopments in the students’ conceptions of learning and approaches tolearning over a period of an academic year.


The students

The students in this study were drawn from an Engineering Foundationcourse, which focused on introducing the students to Advanced-level topicsin Mathematics and Physics. In effect the course was a ‘bridging year’ beforeentry into the mainstream first year undergraduate Engineering courses andcatered for students from a wide range of educational backgrounds – maturestudents returning to higher education as well as school-leaving studentsentering higher education with poor or failed A-levels, or for those withinappropriate A-levels for the degree course in Engineering. Since the overallstudy was longitudinal in design, and would generate a substantial amountof rich data concerning students’ experiences of learning, a small, yet ‘pur-poseful’ sample of thirteen students were chosen from a class of about fiftystudents. This ‘purposeful sample’ (Patton 1980) was formed to obtain asmuch between-student variation in terms of age, previous educational exper-ience and prior science knowledge. As detailed inData Collectionlater, thestudents’ written responses to questions about their learning were also takeninto account for the selection of the thirteen students.

Data collection

At the start of the Foundation Year Programme (term 1), all the studentscompleted a questionnaire requiring written responses to two open-endedquestions concerning their learning: ‘What do you mean by ‘learning’?’, and‘How do you know when you have learnt something?’ They were also askedto elaborate on terms – like memory or understand – that they might usewhen answering the questions. Students’ written responses to these questionswere roughly classified as reflecting a ‘low’ level conception of learning ora more sophisticated one and the sample was selected so as to include aboutthe same numbers of students with ‘low-level’ and ‘sophisticated’ learningconceptions, as well as variation in the other factors listed above. The purposeof choosing a diverse sample was to maximise the variation in conceptionsof learning reflected in the data so as to characterise the phenomenographic‘outcome space’ of learning-conceptions as fully as possible.

Interviews with the thirteen selected students were conducted at threestages during the year – at the outset, in the middle term, and then towards theend of the academic year. The verbatim transcripts of these interviews werethe main data source for examining the students’ conceptions of learning. Theinterviewing was semi-structured, in that it was guided by the same key ques-tions as appeared in the written questionnaire, namely: ‘What do you meanby ‘learning’?’, and ‘How do you know when you have learnt something?’.Students were also asked probing questions to elaborate their responses to


these questions, and were asked to clarify words such as ‘understand’ or‘memorise’ or ‘apply’ if they used them. Their written responses to the ques-tionnaire questions were also used as a basis for discussion and elaboration inthe interviews. The interviews (30–40 minutes) were all audio-recorded andtranscribed.

Data analysis

The analysis of the written interview data was done within a phenomeno-graphic perspective. This involved constructing categories of description thatwere used to characterise the conceptions of learning of these engineeringstudents. These ‘categories of description’ consist of collections of verbatimdescriptions that share important similarities (see Johansson et al., 1985, fora detailed description of this iterative process). The basic aim of the dataanalysis was not to categorise individual students, but to find categories ofdescription that characterised the qualitatively different ways in which learn-ing was experienced or conceptualised by these students. These categories ofdescription, then, represent the major outcome of the study.

Results

From the process of analysis, five qualitatively different conceptions of learn-ing could be identified. These conceptions of learning are characterised bythe categories of description given below:

Conception (A): Learning as memorising definitions, equations andprocedures

In this conception, learning is characterised as involving memorisation ofdefinitions, equations and procedures. This is related closely to the coursecontext, in particular to test or assessment situations. For example:

Learning in order to pass; remembering it for exams, then forgetting it allafterwards.Remembering facts and being able to reproduce them at a given time.To learn it is to know all the formulas and stuff – and to remember all thesteps to get to the answer.

Learning is described in terms of storage and regurgitation. For example:

. . . by doing examples, it sinks into your brain more.It‘s knowing the stuff, and giving it back to them in the exam.


Linked to these descriptions ofstorageandregurgitationare descriptions oflearning in which the learner is a passive recipient. For example:

Learning means sitting behind a desk being taught . . .

Learning is also described in terms of volume and quantity, with theassumption that there is limited ‘storage space’. For example:

Learning is ‘trying to fit it all in your head’.For things like formulas and stuff like that I just write them out a fewtimes, and it’s like stuck – sunk into your memory, you remember it . . . Butif there are too many to learn, then if I remember the new ones I forgetthe old ones, the ones I learned before.

Within this conception, learning is also viewed in terms of study strategies ortechniques needed to ‘get it all in’. There are descriptions of learning in termsof time spent at one’s desk, and of techniques ofrehearsalandrepetition, suchas re-writing lecture notes or copying out solutions to problem-examples. Forexample:

To learn something you have to be disciplined – you have to keep at it –go over it and go over it until you know it.I reread it 2 or 3 times. It’s not just rereading, but rewriting too. It’s aphysical thing – a fag, really.

Successful learning (i.e. having learnt something) is gauged in terms of beingable to reproduce the material learnt:

. . . I used to just draw it out, draw it out, until I knew it . . . That’s how Iused to learn, that’s how I’ve always learnt.

Conception (B): Learning as applying equations and procedures

While the emphasis in this conception is still on the storage of knowledge,now application is stressed. Learning is described as the ability to applysome knowledge or procedure. Whereas conception A was dominated bydescriptions oftaking in definitions, equations and procedures, conceptionB is dominated by descriptions ofapplyingthese. Students make the distinc-tion between substituting numbers into equations (as in conception A) andknowing how toapply equations. For them this ‘application of equations’is described in terms of first finding the right equations to use based onmatching the symbolic content of the equations with the information giving


in the set problem, and then manipulating unknown variables and rearrangingequations in order to apply them to the set problem. For example:

. . . you have to know which formulas to use – what the things stand for,and which one is right for that problem.. . . you have to learn – know – where thefigures should go, and wherethey should come from.In some problems, it’s just filling in formulae, but sometimes it’s havingto rearrange stuff first.

This conception B differs from conception A in that learning is now viewedin a wider context than merely that of course assessment situations. Besidesdescribing learning in terms of applying knowledge to current learning con-texts, students also describe learning with respect to some vague notion of afuture career, or with respect to some anticipated, but unspecified, situationsin their studies. For example:

. . . Learning . . . umm . . . it’s skills to use in the future.

. . . applying it; it’s learning it not just for the sake of knowledge; that’sthe difference between purposeful and useless information.The intake of information that enables you to carry out further exer-cises or experiments [i.e. practical tasks] using the knowledge from yourlearning.

The discernible shift from a passive intake of knowledge (conceptionA),to application and utilisation of knowledge marks a growing activity on thepart of the learner, yet the emphasis is on knowinghow to useequations andprocedures rather than on any active sense-making activity. For example:

. . . [Learning is] not just sitting behind desk, but applying it.

. . . it’s taking what they give us and trying to use it.

Within this conception of learning the term ‘understanding’ may occur, but itis used to describe some future by-product of the process of application andutilisation. In other words, the process of gaining familiarity with algorithmicprocedures and formalism is described by some students as a way of gaining‘understanding’at some future point. For example:

There’s always a certain amount of plugging in. . . If you do it enough,it’ll eventually dawn on you. By the use of them [the equations] you getto understand what they’re all about.For example in Maths, I can use differentiation without fully understand-ing it . . . Understanding doesn’t come until you’ve used it a lot.


Here, the term ‘understanding’ is used within the context of repeated ‘doing’and applying rather than within the context of an active process of sense-making (see conception C below).

Conception (C): Learning as making sense of physical concepts andprocedures

The first two conceptions of learning depicted learning as a process of takingin or using pre-existing knowledge. The critical difference between concep-tions A and B on the one hand, and C, D and E on the other hand, is thelearner’s role insense-making. In the hierarchy of learning-conceptions, thereis a shift from the passive reception or application of knowledge (A or B) toan active constitution of meaning (in conception C). Learning is describedthrough images of ‘activity within the mind’. For example:

. . . [Learning is] sorting it out in your own mind.To be able to reconstruct it later, I need to understand it.You have to think . . . you have to add bits to what he’s already said.

While conception B has learning characterised by the application of equationsin a slightly different way, in conception C learning is characterised by aprocess ofmaking senseof these equations. In conception B, the students’focus of attention was on the symbols contained in the equations, while inconception C there are images of ‘seeing beyond and behind’ the formalismof the equations and calculations. For example:

It’s getting at the theory behind it all, rather then just being able to do theproblems. Like with that ball-thrown-off-the-bridge example – it’s under-standing what is acceleration – the ideas behind the equations. . . We didthose [equations of motion] at school – it’s easy to apply them to problemsand get the answer, but real learning is tounderstandthem – the ideabehind them.It [learning] means understanding things. . . for example, you have toknow why fibre-glass is a good insulator, not just the calculations.

In this conception of learning, the term ‘understanding’ is used in descriptionsof activity ‘in the mind’, in contrast to conception B in which the term ‘under-standing’ was used to describe a future by-product of repeated applicationand utilisation. Learning is also described in terms of developing a problem-solving skill. This skill dimension of learning – the ability to solve problems– is not in terms of remembering or practising algorithms, but in terms ofbeing able to apply knowledge from familiar problem-solving situations tonew ones. For example:


Problem-solving is one of the biggest things in Engineering; you learnsomething, and then you get presented with a list of problems to do, andyou have to relate what you’ve learned, and that’s a definite skill in itself.But for someone who’s just learnt [memorised] the equations, they can’tmake it relate to the problem situation they’re given.

Sense-making is described as a process of rearranging the learning material‘in one’s mind’ or seeking out new links, and then, figuratively, standingback and perceiving new coherence and structure in the learning material.For example:

It [learning] is piecing it together . . . I get information from differentsources, and. . . get a bit of a round view on things.So I view it from start to end, and come to realise that this was done dueto this reason, or that.You begin to see how it all hangs together.

Coherence and integration are also sought through reading about coursematerial from different sources in order to make sense of a particular conceptor principle, as well as seeking links between concepts and between differenttopic-areas:

Understanding. . . is seeing how one thing relates to another. Like somelessons are connected with kinetic energy and some with velocity. Soyou have to understand the question to use the right equations. . . Andunderstand how those two [lessons] are actually linked.

Within this conception of learning as ‘sense-making’, students describeassessing or evaluating the outcome of their learning in several ways. Somedescribe knowing that they understand something in terms of being able toexplain something to others or aloud to themselves, or in terms of being ableto derive equations themselves. For example:

If I understand something, then I can discuss it with someone, explain itto them . . .If you have a basic understanding of the subject, then you don’t need toremember the formula, you can derive it.

Learning is also seen in terms of being able to solve problems through under-standing concepts, although there is a recognition that many problems can besolved partially or entirely by algorithmic procedures.

You can know how to use a formula, V = IR, say. But it is betterto understand it because then you can work it out from your ownunderstanding.


‘Understanding’ in this conception is equated with ‘knowing why’ andcontrasted with ‘knowing how’. For example:

Although they [other students in the class] can do the exercises andproblems . . . theydon’t know why. They just knowhow and notwhy.

The experience of making sense or of understanding is sometimes describedin terms of a sensation of sudden illumination or awareness, or as an inner,intuitive sense. For example:

Understanding. . . well, like in Maths, for example (polar co-ordinates). Itjust came to me like a bolt from the blue. Weird! Wow, I understand this!You just know inside – you feel if you understand or not. If you feel con-fused, then you don’t understand it, and if you’re not confused, then it’sclear.I instinctively know.

This awareness or recognition of one’s own progress in learning differs fromthe way in which learning was experienced in conceptions A and B. There,progress in learning was evaluated in terms of external criteria (such as testresults, or being able to reproduce something successfully), whereas in thisconception, learning is experienced in internal, instinctive terms. This internalawareness of whether something makes sense or not is the start of areflectivedimension of learning which characterises the higher conceptions of learning.

It [learning] is about. . . ummm . . . it’s a skill. Possibly it’s something thatcomes to you as you grow older – a skill in knowing if you understandsomething.

This reflective dimension of learning, then, mediates the sense-making pro-cess. Sense-making – or seeking understanding – is experienced in termsof reflecting on one’s learning and them posing questions to oneself duringstudy. For example, in the following extract, learning is experienced in termsof ‘having questions in one’s mind’ which guide a ‘re-viewing’ of the learningmaterial and which then lead to answers or ‘reasons’ to the questions posed,and finally to being able to articulate that understanding in one’s own words:

If I have solved a problem due to some specially remembered points [i.e.algorithmic procedures], some questions still remain in my mind, like howand why this happened. So I view it from start to end, and come to realisethat this was done due to this reason, or that. Then I come to understandit. You can do it by remembering formulae and theory-words, but if youknow properly why this and this is so, then you need not remember, andyou can even write it in your own words. (Pause). Well, this is my thinking.


This reflective dimension of learning is also experienced in terms of beingable to identify one’s own lack of understanding and to be able to addressthat:

It’s also knowing what you don’t know! (chuckles) Like in [Course A], Irealised that I needed to go over my school maths if I wanted to cope.I have always loved solving problems . . . But you have to know your lim-itations – what you can and can’t do, and improve on what you can’tdo.

In summary, then, sense-making is experienced as occurring through a pro-cess of discerning coherence and structure in the learning material, andthrough a ‘skill’ dimension of learning – described as a skill in transferringone’s knowledge to new problem situations. This process of sense-making ismediated by a ‘reflective’ dimension of learning.

Conception (D): Learning as seeing phenomena in the world in a new way

Conceptions D was found only in two students (both mature students). Whatis common to both conceptions C and D is that the experience of learningmanifests as a process ofmaking senseof something. In conception C thissomethingis the learning material. In conception D, it is thephenomenain the world. So while learning in conception C is described in terms ofunderstanding concepts in the learning material, in conception D learningis experienced in terms of using that understanding to see phenomena in thephysical world or work-world in a new way. For example:

It [learning] is looking at everyday things in new ways. Like I’d neverstopped to think of bridges in terms of forces – you know, those force-diagram things we did with [our lecturer].I can put what I learn in context – like seeing circuits as part of a radarset, or relating logarithms to aerials . . .Now that I understand that [a physics concept], I now look at things ina different light, and I can think back on a lot of instances at work [in amotor-car factory] and think ‘If only I’d known that!’.

Although the students emphasiseapplicationhere, this conception of learningD differs from B in that the emphasis is not on applying procedures andequations, but rather onapplying understanding to make sense of things–phenomena – in the world around them.

Students describe seeing phenomena in a new way because ‘the way ofseeing things’ itself becomes a skill they have acquired. This skill dimensionof learning is described in terms of being able to apply insights and know-ledge to new situations beyond the course context and to phenomena in the


world. For example, one student describes how linking subject knowledge toreal-life situations in one part of his course led him to try to do the same inother situations:

Once I got to think about bridges differently, then when, say, I looked ata building, or say a crane standing on a building-site, then I would lookat it in that new way as well, even though we hadn’t done that in class. . . And then – because that was useful in [course A] I would try to do thesame in [course B]

The other student described this skill dimension of learning in terms of ageneric ability to analyse physical situations and to apply this approach tonew contexts:

. . . it’s – sort of – a way of seeing. It’s knowing how to approach thesubject – the techniques, the methods of analysing situations more thanjust the technicalities of the particular topics we cover.

This ‘skill’ dimension of learning – or this ‘new way of seeing things’ –then, enables students to see phenomena in the world differently. This is anextension of the problem-solving skill in conception C, which was charac-terised as an ability to apply knowledge to new problem-situations. Here itis characterised as an ability to apply one’s knowledge of concepts or of theanalytical methods of the discipline to new situations or phenomena in theworld.

Like in conception C, areflectivedimension of learning is foregroundedin conception D. ‘Seeing something in a different way’ is described as beingmediated by the reflective dimension of learning. For example, in the follow-ing extract ‘seeing phenomena in a different way’ is described by the studentas being mediated by the questions she poses to herself:

[Learning] . . . it’s suddenly seeing these things [concepts] all around us –like why this building is stable, or whymycar goes . . . It’s always askingthe questionwhy.

This ‘reflective’ conceptualisation of learning is distinct from the ‘seeingas a skill’ conceptualisation of learning, although they may be empiri-cally entwined. The ‘reflective’ aspect mediates the skill in applying one’sknowledge or concepts to new situations or phenomena in the world.

Both students who articulate this conception of learning (D) also describelearning as ‘seeing phenomena in a new way’ in terms of their experiences ofhigher education beyond the course material.Interview extracts above haveshown that, while the students experience learning in terms of seeing theengineering-related physical-world and work-world phenomena differently,


they did not experience learning in terms of seeing societal, ethical, or culturalissues in the world differently. Where these studentsdid describe learning asexperiencing a change in one’s outlook or perspective of these wider issues,they perceived this as occurring through thenew perspectives or opinions ofother students. For example:

I think university is more than just the same old learning methods. Whenyou’ve got people around you who you can talk to, and discuss with, a lotof people withdifferent opinions on things. . . then you learn a lot . . .Learning . . . it’s taking notice of the world around you.Like the youngerones [students] – they don’t have any opinions, really, about polit-ics or what’s going on in the world, or anything. Like economics orenvironmental issues. They think you can be an engineer in a vacuum.

In summary then, ‘seeing something in a different way’ is experienced asoccurring through the learning material by virtue of a skill dimension oflearning – an ability to apply knowledge of concepts or the methods of ana-lysis of the discipline to new situations or phenomena in the world. Otherexperiences of higher education beyond the classroom also contribute towardsseeing phenomena in new ways. This ‘seeing in a different way’ is describedas being mediated by a ‘reflective’ dimension of learning.

Conception (E): Learning as a change as a person

This conception builds on conceptions C and D by extending the ‘sense-making’ aspect of learning which started emerging in conception C. Learningis experienced as change as a person. This occurs as follows: by interactingwith the learning material – or with peers – a student may develop new waysof seeing phenomena in the world, and this then leads to change as a person.

As was the case in conception D, only two students (both mature students)experienced learning as ‘change as a person’. This ‘change as a person’ wasexperienced as occurring by virtue of the ‘skill’ aspect of learning describedin conception D. There, the ‘way of seeing’ was a skill that was developed.In this conception E, students describe how being able to use this skill meansthat they see the world differently, and this awareness of being able to do soleads them to see themselves differently. For example, this student describesa change in her self-perception due to an awareness of her developing skill in‘seeing phenomena in a new way’ and of her new perspective on the world:

Stretching oneself is part of the learning experience. . . It [learning] islooking at everyday things in new ways. Like I’d never stopped to thinkof bridges in terms of forces – you know, those force-diagram things wedid with Mr X . . . . And so now, when I canunderstand things like that in


the world, it makes me feel . . . kind of – powerful, in control – like now Iknow what’s going on.

The following extract also illustrates the conception of learning as charac-terised by a ‘personal transformation’ that stems from seeing the world in adifferent way:

S: Learning to me is about growing within yourself. . . . I think learningshould challenge you, make you think about things you take for granted.And at the end of the day, you should feel that you’ve grown inside.I: You wrote here [in the questionnaire] that you saw learning as ‘agreater understanding of yourself. . . ?S: Yes, . . . A lot of the 18-year-olds on this coursedon’t see them-selves, they just see a course. If you ask them after four years whatthey’ve learned, they’d describe the course, but nothing about what they’dlearned about themselves. Whereas, for me, that’s something I think abouta lot.

The above extract, besides illustrating the ‘personal transformation’ concep-tion of learning, also highlights the reflective dimension of learning, whichemerged in conceptions C and D. Here, the ‘change as a person’ is seenas being mediated by the reflective dimension of learning, in which a stu-dent describes reflecting on his own changes as a person and his growing‘understanding of himself’.

In summary, then, ‘change as a person’ is experienced as occurringthrough the skill of ‘seeing things in a different way’, and is mediated bythe reflective dimension of learning.

Distribution of students’ conceptions of learning

The main purpose of this study was to characterise the variation in con-ceptions of learning among students in an engineering learning context,rather than to focus on classifying individuals. In other words, the focuswas on ‘sampling’ variance in experience, rather than on ‘sampling’ indi-viduals. Therefore the classification of students’ conceptions of learning, thedistribution of these conceptions among the students, as well as shifts in stu-dents’ conceptions of learning during the year in response to perceptions ofthe learning context are not reported here, but elsewhere (see Marshall, inpreparation).


Discussion

As discussed earlier in theMethodsection, the study was conducted with asmall ‘purposeful’ sample. Although the small sample places limitations onthe data, the aim of the study was not generalisability but rather to gener-ate a phenomenographic outcome space of conceptions of learning within aparticular context. The characterisation of these conceptions of learning isnot intended to be complete, but rather to illuminate some significant dimen-sions or themes within the experience of learning which are open to furtherphenomenographic analysis.

In this study, five qualitatively different conceptions of learning wereidentified, which showed important similarities with conceptions identified inprevious studies (for example, Säljö 1979; Marton et al. 1993). As in previousstudies, there is a development within the hierarchy of five conceptions fromreproductive to more constructive conceptions of learning. Conceptions Aand B show similarities with the second and third conceptions of learning insome previous studies. The lowest conception of learning in many studies –learning as increasing one’s knowledge – finds no equivalent in this study.This may be a result of the educational context of this study: even thoughthe students had scarcely begun their course at the time of the first interviews,their expectation of the engineering context may have shaped their articulatedconceptions to focus instead on memorising or applying. It is interestingto note that, similarly, in Eklund-Myrskog’s study (1998) with students onprofessionally-oriented courses (nursing and car-mechanics) no conceptionof learning as ‘increasing one’s knowledge’ is identified. In conception B inthis study, there is a shift in focus from the acquisition of equations and pro-cedures (characterised by conception A) to the application of these equationsand procedures. Likewise in conception D, there is a shift in focus from theacquisition of understanding (characterised by conception C) to the applica-tion of that understanding. This shift between anacquisitionphase and anapplicationphase in learning is characterised as the ‘temporal dimension’ oflearning in some other phenomenographic studies (see, for example, Martonand Booth 1997; Marton, Watkins and Tang 1997).

Despite the overall similarities with conceptions of learning identified inprevious studies, there is some significant ‘fine-structure’ variation within thecategories of description, particularly in the higher conceptions of learning.This is not surprising, given that conceptions of learning have been shownto be somewhat dependent on cultural and educational context (see Marton,Watkins and Tang 1997; Dahlin and Regmi 1997; Eklund-Myrskrog 1998)and that different aspects of the learning experience may be foregrounded oraccentuated in different contexts.


A significant aspect of learning that is foregrounded in this study is thereflectivedimension of learning which runs through the higher conceptionsof learning. In conceptions of learning C and D, learning is experienced interms of an awareness, and the outcome of learning is evaluated in terms ofan inner sense of coherence or integration. The experience of making senseof something, described in conception C in terms of intuition or sensation,shows similarities with other characterisations of understanding (Entwistleand Entwistle 1991) and of scientific intuition in terms of a quasi-sensorynature (Marton et al. 1994). This internal recognition of the outcome oflearning is in contrast to conceptions A and B in which learning outcomeis judged in terms of external factors such as getting the right answer to setproblems or passing a test. In these conceptions of learning A and B, thereis no reflective component of learning. This reflective dimension of learningshows parallels with what is elsewhere termed metacognition or metalearning(see, for example, Biggs 1985; White and Gunstone 1989).

Another significant aspect of learning that is foregrounded in this study isaskill dimension of learning, which also runs through the higher conceptionsof learning. In conception C, this is the skill of applying knowledge to newproblem-situations (what students term a ‘problem-solving skill’), while inconception D it is characterised as a skill in applying one’s knowledge ofconcepts or of the analytical methods of one’s discipline to new situationsor phenomena in the world. In conception E, finally, students’ awareness oftheir developing skill in ‘seeing phenomena in the world differently’ leads toa change in their perception of self. Aspects of a skill dimension of learningare also identified in the Marton et al. (1993) study.

In conception D, learning is experienced as ‘seeing phenomena in theworld differently’ due to students’ interacting with the learning material.While this conception of learning shows similarities with the ‘seeing some-thing in a different way’ conception described by Marton et al. (1993), thereare also some significant variations. For the engineering students, learningis experienced in terms of new insights aboutthe physical worldor thework-world. In contrast, the ‘seeing something in a different way’ conceptiondescribed by Marton et al. (1993) was characterised in a qualitatively differ-ent way: in that study, ‘seeing something in a different way’ entailed newperspectives or outlooks on society and thesocial world. Among the engi-neering students the learning material was not linked to changing students’perceptions or outlooks on society or the social world. Where learning isdescribed in terms of changing perspectives on societal issues, it is associatedwith experiences of higher education beyond the course material (e.g. throughinformal discussion with peers).


These ‘fine-structure’ variations between studies are not surprising giventhat different educational contexts can lead to variation in the conceptions oflearning articulated by different student groups (see Eklund-Myrskrog 1998).For example, the students in the Marton et al. (1993) study had completeda Social Science Foundation course which had ‘set out to challenge the stu-dents’ taken-for-granted views about society and thereby to change the wayin which they viewed certain phenomena in the world around them’ (p. 295).It is not surprising, then, that they would hold different conceptions of learn-ing compared to students within an engineering academic context, where thesubject matter and its epistemological assumptions would be experienced bystudents in a different way (see, for example, Becher 1987). Barnett (1990),for example, notes that some subjects are more prone to fostering certainaspects of learning – like critical reflection or personal transformation – thanothers, and that science courses may ‘act as a brake on students’ intellectualformation’ (p. 156). In the case of social science students the learning materialmay potentially lend itself to promoting higher-level conceptions of learning– seeing the world differently or change as a person – in a way that science-based learning material may not do. In fact, Marton et al. (1993) link theexistence of advanced conception of learning in their data to the nature of thestudents’ particular learning context. On the other hand, the epistemologicalnature of science-based learning material may be less conducive to ‘personaltransformation’. Moreover, any epistemological differences between the dis-ciplines are no doubt magnified by the ‘metaphysical realism’ perspective(Linder 1992) reflected in traditional science-based courses, which will affecthow science and engineering students perceive learning in their disciplines.

This study, then, has identified and characterised the qualitative differ-ences and similarities in the conceptions of learning held by students in anengineering context. It is critical that educators are aware of the nature ofstudents’ conceptions of learning, since students’ epistemological positions– how they view learning – will influence the way they go about learning(see, for example, Hammer 1995; van Rossum and Schenck 1986). Theseinsights into students’ conceptions of learning also hold important implica-tions for teaching and curriculum design. Since higher-level, transformativeconceptions of learning are consistent with the espoused aims of ‘higher’education (see, for example, Baird 1988; Barnett 1990), it follows that cur-riculum development and innovation, particularly in science and engineering,ought to foster higher-level conceptions of learning in students. The datafrom this study, although from one particular engineering context, gives someindication of the ways in which these higher-level, transformative conceptionsof learning manifest themselves among engineering students, and character-ises the dimensions of learning that are associated with transformation. In


particular, the data suggest that the following dimensions are associated withtransformation: students’ reflection on their own learning, the ‘skill’ of trans-ferring their knowledge and analytical approaches to situations beyond thelearning context and to phenomena in the world, and informal peer-discussion(often around wider issues connecting with the learning material). This wouldimply that these dimensions ought to be explicitly infused into the teachingand course design (see, for example, Linder and Marshall 1996; Prosser et al.1996; Tynjälä 1997).

Acknowledgement

We are very grateful to Cedric Linder for his helpful comments and sugges-tions about this paper.

Note

1. In phenomenographic studies, terms such as ‘conceptions’, ‘conceptualisations’ and‘ways of experiencing’ are used synonymously. For further discussion, see Marton andBooth (1997).

References

Baird, J.R. (1988). ‘Quality: What should make higher education ‘higher’?’,Higher EducationResearch and Development7(2), 141–152.

Barnett, R. (1990).The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and OUP.Becher, T. (1987). ‘Disciplinary discourse’,Studies in Higher Education12, 261–274.Biggs, J. (1985). ‘The role of metalearning in study processes’,British Journal of Educational

Psychology55, 185–212.Dahlin, B. and Regmi, M. (1997). ‘Conceptions of learning among Nepalese students’,Higher

Education33, 471–493.Eklund-Myrskog, G. (1998). ‘Students’ conceptions of learning in different educational

contexts’,Higher Education35, 299–316.Entwistle, N. and Entwistle, A. (1991). ‘Contrasting forms of understanding for degree exam-

inations: the student experience and its implications’,Higher Education22, 205–227.Giorgi, A. (1986).A Phenomenological Analysis of Descriptions of Conceptions of Learn-

ing Obtained from a Phenomenographic Perspective. (Fenomenografiska notiser Nr. 4)University of Gothenburg, Institute of Education.

Hammer, D. (1995). ‘Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics’,Science Education79(4), 393–413.

Johansson, B., Marton, F. and Svensson, L. (1985). ‘An approach to describing learn-ing as change between qualitatively different conceptions’, in West, L.H.T. and Pines,A.L. (eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando: Academic Press,pp. 233–257.


Linder, C.J. (1992). ‘Is teacher-reflected epistemology a source of conceptual difficulty inphysics?’,International Journal of Science Education11, 491–501.

Linder, C.J. and Marshall, D. (1996). ‘Introducing and evaluating metacognitive strategies inlarge-class physics teaching’. Paper presented at the 4thInternational Improving StudentLearning symposium, University of Bath, UK.

Marshall, D. (1995).The Relationship between Learning Conceptions, Approaches to Learn-ing and Learning Outcomes in Foundation Year Engineering Students. UnpublishedD.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.

Marshall, D. (in preparation). ‘The relationship between changes in conceptions of learningand approaches to learning: a developmental study’.

Martin, E. and Ramsden, P. (1987). ‘Learning skills or skill in learning?, in Richardson, J.,Eysenck, M. and Piper, D. (eds.),Student Learning Research on Education and CognitivePsychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 155–167.

Marton, F. (1988).Phenomenography and ‘the Art of Teaching All Things to All Men’.(In-house publication, Gothenburg University, Sweden).

Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997).Learning and Awareness. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumInc.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. and Beaty, E. (1993). ‘Conceptions of learning’,InternationalJournal of Educational Research19(3), 277–299.

Marton, F., Fensham, P. and Chaiklin, S. (1994). ‘A Nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition:discussion with Nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine (1970–1986)’,International Journal of Science Education16(4), 457–474.

Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). ‘On qualitative differences in learning. 1. Outcome andprocess’,British Journal of Educational Psychology46, 4–11.

Marton, F., Watkins, D. and Tang, C. (1997). ‘Discontinuities and continuities in the experi-ence of learning: an interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong’,Learning andInstruction7(1), 21–48.

Patton, M.Q. (1980).Qualitative Evaluation Methods.London: Sage.Perry, W.G. (1970).Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A

scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Pratt, D. (1992). ‘Chinese students’ conceptions of learning and teaching: A westerner’s

attempt at understanding’,International Journal of Lifelong Education11(4), 301–319.Prosser, M., Walker, P. and Millar, R. (1996). ‘Differences in students’ perceptions of physics

learning’,Physics Education31(1), 43–48.Säljö, R. (1979).Learning in the Learner’s Perspective 1. Some Commonsense Conceptions.

Report No 76, Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.Tynjälä, P. (1997). ‘Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in

different learning environments’,Learning and Instruction7(3), 277–292.van Rossum, E.J. and Schenck, S.M. (1984). ‘The relationship between learning conception,

study strategy and learning outcome’,British Journal of Educational Psychology54, 73–83.

Watkins, D. and Regmi, M. (1992). ‘How universal are student conceptions of learning? ANepalese investigation’,Psychologia35, 101–110.

White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1989). ‘Metalearning and conceptual change’,InternationalJournal of Science Education11, 577–586.

students' conceptions of learning in an engineering context

Documents