Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

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?

Beattie, Vivien, Collins, Bill, McInnes, Bill·1997·Accounting Education

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/096392897331587

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B.
Venue
Accounting Education
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.