The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy?
Abstract
In recent years, broad evaluations of higher education in several countries have called for a greater degree of deep learning (i.e. learning with understanding) relative to surface learning (i.e. rote learning). These concepts, having been developed in the 1970s and 1980s, are now well established in the higher education literature. However, to a large extent, exploration and discussion of these concepts is missing from the accounting education literature. The present paper aims to fill this gap in the accounting education literature by introducing the full complexity of this important education literature on deep and surface learning. We show that the use of this dichotomy, which is often used as a convenient shorthand, generally oversimplifies in two key respects. First, the deep- surface distinction is relevant in analysing the following aspects of learning: student learning intentions, learning styles, learning approaches adopted and learning outcomes. The specific context in which the distinction is being applied must be defined carefully. Moreover, it is unrealistic to assume that a deep approach to learning is universally desirable, since it may be necessary, given the nature of the knowledge to be acquired, to adopt a surface approach. Second, the deep- surface approach to learning has been shown to comprise only one of several components which influence a student's overall learning orientation. As a consequence, the identification of several learning orientations, rather than two approaches, gives richer insights into students learning processes. These orientations, which comprise the learning style and learning approach, are determined partly by the student's personality, motivation and study methods and partly by contextual factors such as the learning task, the attitudes and enthusiasms of the lecturer and the forms of assessment. If intervention strategies designed to improve teaching and learning are to be successful, then a fuller understanding is required of the complex, composite and contingent nature of deep and surface learning and its interrelationship within the teaching-learning environment. This paper calls for a programme of research in accounting education which investigates these issues empirically.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS*
MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x · Cited by 4,608
Understanding Student Learning
Graham, N. C., Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1984) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121589 · Cited by 2,377
Student Approaches to Learning and Studying
BIGGS, J. B. (1987) · Cited by 2,188
MARTON, F., & SÄALJÖ, R. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x · Cited by 1,360
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993) · International Journal of Educational Research · Cited by 1,042
STYLES AND STRATEGIES OF LEARNING
PASK, G. (1976) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02305.x · Cited by 1,029
Individual differences in study processes and the Quality of Learning Outcomes
Biggs, J. (1979) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf01680526 · Cited by 770
INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES
BIGGS, J. B. (1978) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x · Cited by 443
Identifying distinctive approaches to studying
Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf01680525 · Cited by 431
Cited by
The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning
Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703290701602748 · Cited by 537
Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314 · Cited by 526
The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5 · Cited by 386
Understanding Student Plagiarism: An Empirical Study in Accounting Education
Guo, X. (2011) · Accounting Education · doi:10.1080/09639284.2010.534577 · Cited by 88
Machiavellian Ways to Academic Cheating: A Mediational and Interactional Model
Barbaranelli, C., Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., Ghezzi, V., Paciello, M., & Long, P. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00695 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B.
- Venue
- Accounting Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0963-9284 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4489
- OpenAlex
- W2153783196
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 17.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/096392897331587
- The paper
- Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/096392897331587
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.