Surface vs deep learning... an educational perspective

In today’s rapidly changing world, higher-order thinking skills, such as problem-solving and critical thinking, are valued by employers far more than basic skills like fact recall and memorisation (Burbach et al., 2004; O’Leary, 2017). In 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2020, p. 5) reported that “The top skills and skill groups which employers see as rising in prominence in the lead up to 2025 include groups such as critical thinking and analysis as well as problem-solving, and skills in self-management such as active learning, resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility.” Mio and Dombi (2023) further emphasise these evolving skill demands.
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Focus on Effective Instruction page (2021): “The most effective and equitable way to support students in their learning is to ensure the majority of time is spent engaging with grade-level content, remediating with precision and only as necessary. It is entirely possible to hold high expectations for all students while addressing unfinished learning in the context of grade-level work. Since time is a scarce commodity in classrooms, strategic instructional choices about which content to prioritise must be made.
In addition, Research on Student Approaches to Learning traces back to the concept of surface learning. This approach is characterised by shallow and limited interaction with educational material, where students rely heavily on memorisation to reproduce information exactly as required for assessments, rather than striving for a thorough understanding. Motivation in this approach is often externally driven, influenced by fear of failure or the need to meet minimal course requirements, rather than by genuine interest or intrinsic curiosity in the subject (Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001). Consequently, learners adopting a surface approach typically focus only on the specified curriculum content, overlooking additional resources that could enhance their understanding. Such a narrow and goal-focused strategy may hinder long-term memory retention and reduce the learner’s ability to apply knowledge effectively across different contexts.
Conversely, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (2019) describes deep learning as a process in which students engage in higher-order thinking — creativity, analysis, synthesis and evaluation — while connecting new ideas to prior knowledge. This process is supported by skill-focused guidance, purposeful reflection time, and well-designed activities aligned with clear outcomes and assessment criteria. Extended project-based tasks foster deeper understanding and collaboration, while effective pacing sustains engagement without overwhelming learners. Structured scaffolding, reinforced with optional support materials, enables students to meet higher academic expectations.
In summary, surface learning is typified by a minimal level of engagement, with students focusing primarily on memorisation and recall passing assessments, often motivated by external factors such as fear of failure or simply meeting course requirements. This approach tends to limit the learner’s capacity for long-term retention and the flexible application of knowledge across contexts. Conversely, deep learning encourages active, critical and thoughtful interaction with content, emphasising higher-order thinking skills including creativity, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Intrinsically motivated by genuine curiosity, deep learners seek to integrate new information with existing knowledge and extend their studies beyond the core curriculum. Ultimately, while surface learning may yield short-term academic gains, deep learning fosters enduring intellectual development and meaningful comprehension.

Dr Zainab Al Ajmi

The writer is with the Ministry of Education