Peter Howie

A critique of the deep and surface approaches to learning model

This paper is a critical analysis of Biggss deep and surface approaches to learning model, which is prominent in the higher education and tertiary learning fields. The paper reflects on the models origins and the contextual pressures of the educational landscape extant at that time. It is argued that these pressures have led to a demonstrable lack of serious critique of the model, which has truncated the models development, leaving it underdeveloped. There are significant problems with the model in the areas of supporting evidence, imprecise conceptualisation, ambiguous language, circularity, and a lack of definition of the underlying structure of deep and surface approaches to learning.

A beautiful metaphor: transformative learning theory

This article presents a critique of both transformative learning theory and critical comments on it to date. It argues that transformative learning theory remains substantively the same as its initial exposition, in spite of a raft of problematic contentions voiced against it. The theory is argued here to be conceptually problematic, except at the level of a conceptual metaphor, which latter renders its many inconsistencies inconsequential and which explains, not just its continued popularity among educational practitioners, but also it’s largely being ignored as a subject worthy of serious critique.

A Critical Comparison of Transformation and Deep Approach Theories of Learning.

This paper reports a critical comparative analysis of two popular and significant theories of adult learning: the transformation and the deep approach theories of learning. These theories are operative in different educational sectors, are significant, respectively, in each, and they may be seen as both touching on similar concerns with learning that is profound in its nature and impact on the learner—hence the case for a critical comparison. The critical analysis focused on similarities and differences between the two theories on a set of general criteria. It found that, while there are unacknowledged similarities, the differences are complementary, each theory suggesting a different way of considering the same territory, without excluding the other theory. The analysis strongly suggests the imperative for research findings from each theory to be used to inform practice and research through the other, although the literature reveals a lack of such cross-fertilization.

A Criterial Framework for Concept Evaluation in Social Practice and Scholarship

This article responds to the argued lack of clearly articulated, consistent, and agreed criteria that might be used by researchers for determining the adequacy of a given concept for a given task. It does so by describing the development of a framework of such criteria, presenting that framework, and illustratively applying it to the evaluation of the concept of warm-up in psychodrama. The framework comprises eight criteria in three categories: the intrinsic qualities of a concept (the criteria of clarity, comprehensiveness, parsimony, and resonance), the contextualization of a concept (differentiation and connectedness), and its application (epistemic utility and practical utility). Using the framework to evaluate the concept of warm-up in the context of its use in psychodrama suggests its potential to make significant differentiations. It is argued that this framework may contribute to evaluating other concepts in other contexts, although the extent of such generalizability remains to be ascertained.