Hattie & Donoghue’s Model of Learning: surface, deep, and transfer

Hattie and Donoghue’s model of learning has sparked significant discussion and critique. At its core, the model emphasizes that effective learning is influenced by three areas: skill (prior achievement), will (habits of mind), and thrill (motivation). It also distinguishes between three approaches to learning—surface, deep, and achieving—and links these with three phases: surface, deep, and transfer. While the model encourages an integrated approach, it assigns equal importance to surface and deep learning, suggesting that one phase must precede the other for effective learning.

The model draws on the SOLO taxonomy, which classifies learning outcomes from superficial (unistructural and multistructural) to deeper relational understanding and extended abstract levels. In this context, achieving surface understanding is foundational for deeper learning and eventual transfer of knowledge across contexts.

Arguments Supporting the Model

1. Acknowledgment of Learning Stages: The model’s distinction between surface and deep learning phases reflects the cognitive process, aligning with research on how novices and experts approach problems differently.
2. Focus on Motivation and Engagement: By incorporating the “thrill” element, it highlights the importance of motivation in learning.
3. Nuanced Application of Strategies: Hattie recognizes that learning strategies are not universally effective but depend on context and learners’ expertise levels, which resonates with findings like the expertise reversal effect.

Critiques of the Model

1. The Problematic Depth Metaphor: Critics argue that “depth” is a misleading concept. Learning depth may not signify a qualitatively different process but rather the accumulation and integration of knowledge over time.
2. Overemphasis on Phases: The rigid surface→deep→transfer progression does not account for how knowledge naturally organizes itself in the brain as schemas grow with practice.
3. Simplification of Understanding: The distinction between knowing and understanding is contested, as understanding is seen as merely a broader or more interconnected form of knowledge, not a separate state.
4. Transfer and Expertise: Transfer is highlighted as an endpoint, but critics suggest focusing on building expertise, where knowledge application becomes automatic and flexible, is a more practical and research-backed goal.

Alternative Perspective

Replacing surface→deep→transfer with novice→expert offers a simpler, more intuitive framework. Learning is viewed as a continuum where knowledge builds incrementally, becoming more flexible and interconnected as expertise grows. This approach emphasizes purposeful practice and schema development over rigidly defined phases.

Conclusion

Hattie and Donoghue’s model provides a structured way to think about learning and acknowledges the complexity of the process. However, its reliance on metaphorical constructs like “depth” and a phased progression invites criticism. Simplifying the model to focus on the transition from novice to expert may offer greater clarity and practical applicability in educational settings. The debate highlights the need for a balance between theoretical frameworks and real-world teaching practices.