• I try and write down exactly what my instructor says during \lectures.
• I try to memorize answers to questions from study guides.
• In order for me to understand what technical terms mean, I memorize the text-book definitions.
• When I study for exams, I try to remember exactly what was presented about the material.
• If I have trouble solving a problem or answering a homework question, I'll try to get someone else to do it for me.
• If I have trouble solving a homework problem, I copy down the answer in the back of the textbook if it is available.
• When I study for tests I use my notes and the book to help me memorize the terms that I will see on the test.
• When I read something in the book that doesn't make sense, I skip it and hope that the teacher explains it in class.
• If I have trouble solving a problem I'm more likely to guess at the answer than to look at examples in the book to try to figure things out.
• I try to memorize the steps presented in the text or in class for solving problems or answering questions

The distinction between tdeep and shallow types of strategies was based on that outlined by Jacoby and Craik (1979) and Anderson and Reder (1979).  Deep processing (i.e, elaborative processing) strategies involve attempts to connect or integrate new information with existing knowledge in an effort to form a richer, more coherent mental representation (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).  Shallow processing (i.e., rote) strategies such as underlining or merely rereading the new information produces a less elaborate memory representation, limiting the generalizability of the information.  Research has shown that learners who use deep processing strategies are more successful on tests of comprehension than learners who only use shallow strategies involving less cognitive effort (e.g., Bradshaw & Anderson, 1982; Bransford, Stein, Vye, Franks, Auble, Mezynski, & Perfetto, 1982; Brown, Armbruster, & Baker, 1986; Garner, 1987).  We used the works of Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Kardash and Amlund (1991), as well as the theory of Jacoby and Craik (1979) and Anderson and Reder (1979) to identify items that reflected the two types of processing strategies.  Entwistle and Ramsden measured learning strategies that they thought involved either the meaningfulness of material (deep processing) or the rote memorization of material (shallow processing).  Kardash and Amlund asked their subjects about using covert or overt processes while studying from text.  In general, the covert processes seemed to involve working with the meaning of the material, which is deep level processing, while the overt processes tended to reflect more superficial strategies such as underlining and taking verbatim notes.  Their findings regarding differences between their two scales were consistent with the findings on differences between deep and shallow scales, in that the covert scale was more strongly related to measures of learning from expository text than was the overt scale.

Anderson, J.R., & Reder, L.M. (1979).  An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing.  In L.S. Cermak and F.I.M.  Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385-395).    Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983).  Understanding student learning.    New York: Nichols Publishing Co.
Garner, R.  (1987).  Strategies for reading and studying expository text.    Educational Psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 299-312.
Jacoby, L.L., & Craik, F.I.M. (1979).  Effects of elaboration of processing  at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of   initial context.  In L.S. Cermak and F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of   processing in human memory (pp. 1-21).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kardash, C.M., & Amlund, J.T. (1991).  Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117-138.
 
 

*Greene, B. A. & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on course achievement: Goals, Perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.