Learning approaches

In the 1970s and 1980s, various authors developed different classifications of learning approaches (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Säljö, 1976; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). The theoretical models did not primarily focus on the amount of how much is learned, but on the way people learn. Based on the observation that differences occur when people work on the same learning task, they differentiated between a surface and a deep learning approach. The key message from the models was that the pursued approach to learning is a decisive factor in the outcome of learning.

The early approaches to learning formed the basis for today’s research on learning strategies and instructional models to promote learning. Over time, the original learning theories had undergone some further development. They had been linked to other theoretical concepts or applied and evaluated in different domains. All of these remarkable changes can even be noticed in the seven articles gathered for this special issue.

Lee et al. (2019) related students’ learning strategies to their inner speech in the learning context. In two samples of secondary school students and university students, they were able to show that learning strategies serve as a mediator of the relation between students’ inner speech and academic performance.

Karagiannopoulou et al. (2019) considered students’ approaches to learning in connection with defence styles. They took a methodologically challenging, but also fruitful path by analysing student profiles that were associated with certain adaptive and maladaptive learning patterns.

Kember et al. (2020) took the 3P model of approaches to learning (Biggs, 1987) as the starting point for their research and examined a reformulated model by use of structural equation modelling. Based on a large data set, the model revealed the connections between the teaching and learning environment, a deep approach to learning, and social and cognitive student attributes.

Chan and Yeung (2019) adapted the Presage-Process-Product (3P) framework for their purposes and tried to predict the development of holistic competencies, which are considered crucial for students’ life-long learning and whole-person development. The researchers could demonstrate that self-directed motives such as enjoyment and friendship building go hand in hand with a more positive perception of learning activities and a higher holistic competence development.

Wu et al. (2019) reanalysed data from the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 to refute a misperception of East Asian learners. Often it is said that the outstanding performance of this group is due to excessive use of unsophisticated memorisation strategies. The authors, however, could show that especially deep metacognitive strategies in combination with memorisation lead to better mathematics achievement.

Mierowsky et al. (2019) examined the use of another learning strategy, namely the mimicking of gestures, in order to better master playing a piano. Learners who were required to gesture while watching an instructional video had a significant learning advantage over participants in a no-gesturing condition.

Rodríguez-Negro and Yanci (2019) examined in physical education the effectiveness of two competing instructional models to promote learning. While the direct instructional model better strengthened students_’’ physical fitness, the tactical games model made better use of learning and instruction time.

Research presented in this issue shows in an excellent manner the development of an important branch of educational research. The wide variety of research methodologies for studying learning strategies and instructional models to promote learning is impressive. It might be difficult to believe that this wealth of variants for describing and explaining approaches to learning once emerged from a little observation of the nature of humans.