ho. w
AN ASSESSMENT OF SELF REGULATION, STUDY SKILLS
INSTRUCTION, AND MEASURES OF ABILITY'
ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Kathleen A. Ryan
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
July 1980
Approved by Doctoral Committee
Advisor Department of Psychology
Graduate School Representative Il
ABSTRACT
Selfr-regulation of study behaviors and training in effective study skills are two methods that have been used to improve student academic performance. Both methods, however, have not been reliable in producing positive results. The purpose of this study was to determine if student academic aptitude or student study habits affect the extent to which self-regulation procedures and study skills training increase academic performance. The question asked was whether a method optimal for one student was also optimal for others.
Participants were 356 students enrolled in 10 sections of introductory psychology. Five experimental conditions, each consisting of two sections, differed in the instructions given to students in the beginning of the course. Students in the self-regulation condition were instructed to monitor and record certain study behaviors on a regular basis. Students in the study skills condition were instructed in the SQ3R Study Method.
A third condition required students to both self-regulate their study behaviors and learn the SQ3R Study Method. A fourth "no treatment” condition simply required students to complete chapter outlines. A fifth condition was also a no treatment condition but did not require chapter outlines.
The measure of student aptitude was scores on the American College
Test (ACT). The measure of student study habits was scores on the Brown-
Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA). Measures used to evaluate the results were total number of points earned on all five exams scheduled during the school term and scores on a comprehensive final exam. Regression analysis showed significant aptitude-treatment and study habits-treatment interactions for both midterm tests and final exam scores.
The combined treatment of self-regulation procedures and study skills training benefited above average students more than either treatment alone. Above average students with self-regulation procedures performed slightly better than comparable students with study skills training.
Self-regulation benefited students who scored high on the Delay Avoidance subscale of the SSHA more than those with study skills training. On the other hand, study skills training benefited students who scored high on the Work Methods subscale.
The present study found that both self-regulation procedures and study skills training benefited above average students while not helping below average students. This finding implies that the focus of these two treatment programs towards helping low ability students may have, in the past, been misplaced. IV
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION...... 1
Self-Regulation...... 2
Academie performance ...... 5
Methodological considerations ...... S
Study Skills...... 10
Academic Aptitude-Treatment Interactions ...... 13
Statement of the Problem...... 17
METHOD . o ...... 20
Subjects ...... 20
Procedure...... 20
Study Skills instruction . .23
Self-regulation instruction ...... 24
No treatment...... 28
Summary of Experimental Design...... 28
RESULTS...... 30
Equivalence of Groups...... 30
Aptitude by Treatment Interactions ...... 31
Total points on midterm tests...... 32
Scores on final exam ...... 37
Study Habits by Treatment Interactions ...... 40
Course and Instructor Evaluations...... 50 V
Page
DISCUSSION...... 52
Self-Regulation...... 52
Study Skills...... 56
SSHA Subscales ...... 59
SUMMARY...... 60
FOOTNOTES ..... 62
REFERENCES...... 65
APPENDICES...... 73 List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Representation of no interaction, ordinal and disordinal interactions...... 16
Figure 2. Regression of midterm test points on ACT Composite scores for all conditions ...... 34
Figure 3. Regression of final exam scores on ACT Composite scores for all conditions...... 39
Figure 4« Regression of midterm test scores on Delay Avoidance subscale for all conditions...... 43
Figure 5. Regression of midterm test scores on Work Methods subscale for all conditions ...... 45
Figure 6. Regression of final exam scores on Delay Avoidance subscale for all conditions...... 47
Figure 7. Regression of final exam scores on Work Methods subscale for all conditions...... 49 List of Appendices
page
Appendix 1. Contract...... 73
Appendix 2. Study skills instruction...... 75
Appendix 3. SQ3R Exercises...... 81
Appendix 4. Study skills quiz. . 89
Appendix 5. Self-regulation instructions ...... 91
Appendix 6. Self-régulâtion quiz. ... 97
Appendix 7. Means and standard deviations for psychology pretest, ACT Composite scores, and SSHA subscales . . . 99
Appendix 8. Stepwise regression of ACT Composite, Treatment, and interaction on midterm test poinst...... 103
Appendix 9. Regression analysis for midterm tests 1-5...... 105
Appendix 10. Stepwise regression of ACT Composite, Treatment, and interaction on final exam score...... 112
Appendix 11. Teacher Approval and Educational Acceptance subscales of the SSHA...... 114
Appendix 12. SSHA regression analysis ...... 119
Appendix 13. Course and instructor evaluations ...... 125
Appendix 14. Treatment evaluations ...... 128
Appendix 15. Self-regulation group means and intercorrelaticn matrix ...... 131 INTRODUCTION
There have been several programs designed to help solve study problems of college undergraduates. Two of these programs are instruction in specific study skills which are assumed to be lacking, and instruction * in behavioral self-regulation techniques. Inconsistent results have been reported for each of the treatment approaches. For example, some studies report self-regulation techniques have successfully treated study problems (e.g. Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Mount & Tirrell, 1977; Richards,
1975; Richards, McReynolds, Holt, & Sexton, 1976) but other studies have found no effect (e.g. Grundle, 1975; McCrae, 1976; Tichenor, 1977).
Also, instruction in specific study skills was found to be effective in several studies (e.g. Brown & Holtzman, 1967; Jackson & Van Zoost,
1972; Locke, 1977; Richards, 1975; Richards, et al. 1976) but not in others (e.g. Greiner & Karoly, 1976). Some of the inconsistent findings may be due to methodological inadequacies, but another reason for the inconsistent results may be that methods optimal for some students are detrimental to the achievement of others (Cronbach & Snow, 1977). Although success has been reported with both self-regulation methods and study skills training when treating individual students (e.g. Broden, Hall, &
Mitts, 1971; Epstein & Goss, 1978; Goldiamond, 1965), none of the studies cited above distinguish between the case of zero impact for all students and the case of positive impacts for some students and approx imately equal but negative impacts for others. What is of concern are interactions, that is, the academic performance of a particular student may be dependent upon the nature of the treatment and on individual characteristics, such as academic ability and study habits (cf. Cronbach
& Snow, 1977). The purpose of the present research was to determine the extent to which self-regulation procedures and study skills instruction increase academic performance as a function of student aptitude and as a function of student study habits and attitudes. Specifically, the following question was addressed. Do student aptitude and student study habits differentially affect the extent to which self-regulation methods and/or study skills training increase academic performance?
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation or self-management is defined as any behavior performed by an organism which is designed to modify the probability of another behavior (Mahoney, 1972). Treatment programs utilizing self-regulation require the individual to observe his or her own behavior, establish standards for change, execute change, and provide motivational resources for maintaining change. Kanfer (1980) explicitly identified components within a self-regulation model which relate to distinct psychological processes within the individual. The first stage is a self-monitoring or self-observation stage and is described as carefully observing and recording one’s behavior, the occurrence of which becomes a discriminative stimulus for further action. Positive self-monitoring refers to the recognition and recording of behaviors or attributes that one wants to increase (e.g. studying, assertive responses) while negative self monitoring refers to the tracking of negative behaviors that one wants decrease (e.g. smoking, self-critical responses). The valence (positive
2 or negative) of the target behavior has been shown to affect the degree
of behavior change. Kirschenbaum & Karoly (1977) reported that in a
laboratory study in which college students were required to practice
solving mathematics problems, negative self-monitoring led to decreased
accuracy in performance, lowered self-evaluations, and a general increase in anxiety associated with performance in comparison to positive self monitoring.
The second stage of self-regulation is referred to as the self- evaluation stage and is essentially a discrimination response which reveals the discrepancy between what one is doing and what one ought to be doing. The extent of behavior change may depend upon the difficulty of the discrimination response. Several studies report that the effect iveness of self-monitoring methods in producing behavior change depend to a large extent upon the occurrence of an explicit goal-setting process
(e.g. Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Kazdin, 1974; Sagotsky, Patterson, &
Lepper, 1978). For example, in a laboratory experiment by Kazdin (1974), one group of subjects received self-regulation instructions plus a performance standard (e.g. 35 out of 40 correct was the cutoff for really good performance) and one group simply received self-regulation instructions
Of the subjects who received the standard, 30.6 percent actually achieved the specified goal, compared with 8.3 percent for subjects who were not given the performance criterion. The presence of a criterion of per formance set either by the subject himself or by the experimenter may facilitate the discrimination between current behavior and the criterion, resulting in greater behavior change.
3 The third stage in the self-regulation process consists of the administration of self-reinforcement and is dependent upon the degree to which the target behavior diverges from the performance criterion.
Self-reinforcement refers to any self-regulation program designed to increase the probability of some target behavior either by the self presentation of positive consequences or by the removal of negative consequences (Mahoney, 1972). Self-reactions resulting from the process of observing one’s behavior are included within the context of self- reinforcement. A self-reaction which leads to self-satisfaction and self pride can result in an increase in the probability of a target behavior, while a self-reaction which leads to self-dissatisfaction and self- 1 criticism can result in a decrease in the probability of a behavior
(Bandura, 1978).
Recent investigations in the area of self-regulation have shown that the act of observing and recording one's behavior can have reactive effects resulting in dramatic behavior change. Self-regulation programs have reduced hallucinations (Rutner & Bugle, 1969), tics (Thomas, Abrams,
& Johnson, 1971), nail biting (Maletzky, 1974), face touching (Lipinski,
Black, & Nelson, 1975), obesity (Romancyzk, Kent, Diament, & O'Leary,
1973), and disruptive student behavior (Broden, et al. 1971; Epstein &
Goss, 1978). There are studies, however, which have found no effect from self-regulation (e.g. Berecz, 1972; Hall, 1972; Mahoney, Moura,
& Wade, 1973; Stollack, 1967). In addition, follow-up studies indicate that the theraputic effects sometimes attenuate with time (e.g. Broden, et al. 1971; Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1972; Mahoney, 1974).
4 An interesting and somewhat perplexing feature of self-regulation
is that behavior change does not appear to depend upon accurate or
reliable recording on the part of the subject (e.g. Broden, et al. 1971;
Fixsen, et al. 1972; Lipinski & Nelson, 1974; Lipinski, et al. 1975).
Conversely, highly reliable reoording of one’s behavior does not insure
changes in the desired behavior (e.g. Lipinski.& Nelson, 1974; Lipinski,
et al. 1975). For example, Lipinski & Nelson (1974) found that face touching behaviors of college students in a classroom was significantly affected by self-recording, even though the self-recorders were unreliable as compared with independent observers. In a later study, Lipinski, et al.
(1975) demonstrated that subjects who were reinforced (money) for increasing their reliability increased their accuracy without concurrently reducing face-touching behaviors. Conversely, for subjects who were reinforced for reducing face touching, no increase in reliability occurred.
Although recording one’s behavior may be reactive, the magnitude of the effect has been shown to be affected by instructions (Katz, Thomas,
& Williamson, 1976; McFall, 1970), timing of self-recording (Bellack,
Rozensky, & Schwartz, 1974), schedule, that is, continuous versus inter mittent self-monitoring (Mahoney, Moore, Wade, & Moura, 1973), valence of the target behavior (Kazdin, 1974; Kirschenbaum & Karoly, 1977), task difficulty (Kirschenbaum & Karoly, 1977; Wade, 1974), feedback
(Kazdin, 1974; Mount & Tirrell, 1977), and goal setting (Greiner &
Karoly, 1976; Kazdin, 1974).
Academic Performance. Within the area of student academic performance, several studies have attempted to improve students’ test scores through
5 the self-regulation of study time (e.g. Anthony, 1974-5 Atlee, 1975;
Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Groveman, Richards, & Caple, 1977; Grundle,
1975; Johnson & White, 1971; Mount & Tirrell, 1977; Mahoney, et al.
1973; Richards, 1975; Richards, et al. 1976; Tichenor, 1977; Ziesat,
Rosenthal, & White, 1978). Although the amount of study time may be positively related to academic performance (e.g. Born & Davis, 1974), not all of the studies mentioned above have reported an increase in test scores accompanying an increase in the time spent studying (e.g.
Anthony, 1974; Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Groveman, et al. 1977; Kazlo,
1975; Tichenor, 1977; Ziesat, et al. 1978). In addition, several studies did not observe an increase in study time as a result of self regulation procedures (e.g. Grundle, 1975; McCrae, 1976).
Greiner St Karoly (1976) examined the relative effect of self- monitoring, self-reward, and planning strategies as self-control aids for studying. The design of the experiment was pyramidal in that a study skills advice group served as the base treatment group, and the other groups had self-monitoring (Group 3), self-monitoring plus self-reward
(Group 4)t and self-monitoring, self-reward, plus planning strategies
(Group 5) added to the study skills advice group. For all groups, treatment was initiated following the first quiz in an introductory psychology class and was held (3 sessions) outside and completely separate from regular class participation. Students were recruited as subjects if they scored below the 50th percentile on the Brown & Holtzman
(1967) Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA), a questionnaire designed to assess students' use of effective study skills, and if they
6 had a grade point average (GPA) of 3.00 or below. (This criteria
eliminated 44 percent of the student volunteers).. Data from the self monitoring records showed that Groups 3, 4, and 5 differed significantly
in the total amount of study time, with Group 5 spending more time studying
than the other groups. Group 4 did not differ, however, from Group 3.
More important is that an analysis of quiz scores (2 quizzes) and groups
showed no significant change in quiz scores as a function of training.
An interaction between groups and quiz scores was significant, however, and showed that Group 5, the planning group, performed significantly better on the second quiz (after treatment) than on the first (before treatment), but that the other groups did not change significantly.
The Greiner & Karoly study did not reveal effects due to self- monitoring alone, a finding inconsistent with other studies where the target behavior was the amount of study time (e.g. Atlee, 1975; Johnson
& White, 1971; Mahoney, et al. 1973; Mount & Tirrell, 1977; Stadter,
1974; Richards, 1975; Richards, et al. 1976). Other studies have also reported no significant changes in grade performance as a result of a self-regulation program (e.g. Tichenor, 1977; Ziesat, et al. 1978).
Greiner & Karoly (1976) speculate that the reactive effects of self monitoring largely occur when it is possible to self-evaluate current performance relative to a discrete and well-specified performance criterion
It is possible that an explicit performance criterion may facilitate behavior change; however, an examination of those studies which have found significant theraputic effects resulting from the self-regulation of study time did not include within their self-regulation program a pre
7 planned performance criterion (e.g. Johnson & White, 1971; Kazdin, 1974;
Mount & Tirrell, 1977; Richards, 1975). Undoubtedly, other factors
operate within the self-regulation program to influence the degree of
behavior change observed.
Methodological Considerations. Although a relatively recent area for
investigation, the self-regulation of student study behavior has several methodological shortcomings. Experiments which explicitly compare
reinforcement schemes (e.g. Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Tichenor, 1977)
or compare the presence or absence of direct instruction in stimulus
control procedures (e.g. Richards, 1975) do not monitor the use of such reinforcement schemes or stimulus control techniques by the subjects, and
consequently, conclusions with regard to these variables are tentative.
For example, Group 4 in the Greiner & Karoly (1976) study was instructed in how to self-administer rewards following a successful study session.
The reward strategy was based upon Premack’s principle (1965) which calls for the subject to list his favorite activities. The subject was told that upon the satisfactory completion of a study session he was to allow himself to engage in one favorite activity and was instructed that the activity was to commence immediately after the study session and was not to exceed the duration of the study period. The finding that no differences were observed between Groups 3 and 4 may have been due to either the
Premack reward strategy itself, or simply that it was not used by the students. Second, the presence of only one therapist or experimenter initiating the training sessions carries the potential for experimenter bias (e.g. Johnson & White, 1971; Groveman, et al. 1977; Tichenor, 1977;
Ziesat, et al. 1978). Third, the lack of operational definitions
8 regarding self-regulation and its various components (self-monitoring,
self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement) create difficulties in cross
study comparisons and hamper replication (e.g. Johnson & White, 1971;
Richards, et al. 1976; Ziesat, et al. 1978). Fourth, deliberately restricting the subject population to those students with study problems results in an inability to generalize to other student populations and a narrowing of the concept of self-regulation. The assumption becomes explicit that reactive effects, if they are to occur, will be maximized with students of low academic ability who lack effective study skills.
There is no evidence that this assumption is valid. In fact, the low ability student may have emotional and motivational problems which would serve to counteract or inhibit possible benefits of a self-regulation program. Clearly, any reactive effects resulting from a self-regulation program based upon a homogeneous group of students would preclude the assessment of interactive effects between treatment and student characteristics
(e.g. Groveman, et al. 1977; Mahoney, et al. 1973; Mount & Tirrell, 1977;
Richards, et al. 1976; Ziesat, et al. 1978). Whether interactive effects exist between self-regulation procedures and individual differences was assessed in the present experiment.
A significant methodological issue and one which has been given considerable attention is the reliability of the self-monitored response required of the subjects (e.g. Lipinski, et al. 1975; Lipinski & Nelson,
1974; Kanfer, 1970; Mahoney, 1972; Simkins, 1971). Self-reports made about observable behaviors are typically verified by another observer or by the analysis of the behavioral product (e.g. cigarette butts in an ash tray as a measure of the frequency of smoking). Several studies have
9 shown that the accuracy of self-reports is related to whether the subject
was told that the reliability of his recordings was being assessed
(e.g. Lipinski & Nelson, 1974; Romanczyk, et al. 1973). However, it
has also been shown that the reactive nature of self-regulation, that is,
actual changes in behavior as a function of self-recording is, to some
extent, independent of the degree of reliability by subjects in self-
recording (e.g. Lipinski & Nelson, 1974).
The relative independence of the reliability and the reactivity of
self-regulatory processes implies that the reliability of self-recordings must be considered when the purpose of the therapist or experimenter is
to assess the frequency of the target behavior prior to instituting
treatment (baseline measure). However, when the purpose of self-recording
is to evaluate its' reactive effects on a particular behavior, then the
reliability of the self-reports, although important, may not significantly affect whether behavior change occurs. An evaluation of the reactive
effects of self-regulation procedures can be measured by changes in the
consequences of its' manipulation on observable behavior (cf. Kanfer, 1970)
In the present study, the consequences which are of concern are the effects on academic achievement, as judged by scores on the midterm tests and scores on the final exam.
Study Skills
A second major approach to problems of academic performance is instruction in proper study skills. Such programs involve the assumption that academic performance may, in part, depend upon the knowledge and use
10 of effective methods of study (e.g. Brown & Holtzman, 1967; Colwell &
Entwistle, 1971). Unfortunately, the literature is inconsistent
regarding the most effective study methods with little support for any
particular study technique (e.g. Annis & Davis, 1978). For example,
in some studies note taking resulted in more learning than not taking
notes (e.g. Annis & Davis, 1975, 1978; DiVesta & Gray, 1972), but in
other studies no increase in learning took place (e.g. Howe, 1978;
Idstein & Jenkins, 1972). Also, some studies found an advantage for
underlining (e.g. Annis & Davis, 1978; Fowler & Barker, 1974; Richards
& August, 1975) but others did not (e.g. Noall, 1962; Stordahl &
Christensen, 1956). The conflict among studies suggests that the content
of study skills instruction is not reliably related to academic improvement
(Entwistle, 1960). One factor may be that underachievement appears to
be a function of both a deficit in study skills and emotional and psychological adjustment problems (e.g. Bednar & Weinbe, 1970; Robyak,
1978). In addition, knowledge of appropriate study habits may not be as common among students as the unwillingness to use them. Weigel & Weigel
(1967) found that when undergraduate students responded as an ideal student
on the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (Brown & Holtzman, 1967), their
scores fell at the 94th percentile of the national norms. When responding as themselves, however, their scores fell around the 30-40th percentile.
Three studies primarily interested in self-regulation techniques as a treatment for poor study habits included within their design a group of subjects receiving training in Robinson's (1970) SQJR Reading Method
(Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Richards, 1975; Richards, et al. 1976).
11 The SQ3R Method divides student study periods into five parts: Survey,
Question, Read, Recite, Review. The student first surveys the material to be read, noting figures, tables, summaries, etc. The student then turns the topic of the section into a question and attempts to read the section for the purpose of answering the question. Following the reading, the student reviews the section by reciting the important points from memory, of the material just read. Lastly, the student reviews the material fcy writing down brief notes of the material, preferably in outline form.
Studies using the SQ3R Method (Richards, 1975; Richards, et al. 1976) found performance scores to be significantly better for the SQ3R group as compared to a no treatment control group. One study (Greiner &
Karoly, 1976), however, found no significant difference in academic achievement between an SQ3R group and a no treatment control group. The design of these three studies prohibited comparisons to be made between the SQ3R Reading Method and any of the self-regulation groups since SQ3R instruction was included as a base treatment in the self-regulation groups.
A brief study by Groveman, et al. (1977) compared the effects of study skills counseling versus self-regulation techniques on academic performance of undergraduates. The treatments were carried out in the context of group therapy with the first author serving as therapist. Results showed that the difference between the groups was only marginally significant in favor of the self-regulation treatment. The authors point out that limitations involving design, use of only one therapist, and marginal levels of statistical significance justify caution when interpreting the data.
12 Assessment of the effects of a particular study technique has
typically been carried out on a select student population. Those students who admitted to having study problems, or who expressed a desire to improve their study habits, or who met some specific criterion for acceptance into the experiment (e.g. low grade point average) were tested.
This methodology precluded the assessment of treatment-aptitude interactions
The lack of beneficial effects of training in effective study skills found in some studies (Greiner & Karoly, 1976) may have been due to the restricted range of students examined. To assess this possibility, interaction effects between instruction in study skills and student ability and student study habits and attitudes was assessed in the present experiment.
Academic Aptitude-Treatment Interactions (ATI)
The differential effectiveness of a given instructional technique
(treatment) for different groups of students (aptitude) provides information about the distributional impact of the teaching approach being studied
(Cronbach & Snow, 1977). The impact of a particular technique on a specific type of student is measured by regressing the outcome measure (final performance) onto a score obtained prior to treatment (aptitude score) and observing the resulting Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI).
Lubin (l96l) distinguished two kinds of interactions. An ordinal interaction is one in which the rank order of the treatments is constant, while a disordinal interaction is one in which rank order of the treatments changes. The two kinds of interaction, along with a representation of
13 no interaction, is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1a represents a situation with no interaction. In this situation the two regression lines are parallel and Treatment I is superior to Treatment II across all values of X. In Figure 1b, while Treatment I is still superior to Treatment II along values of X, it is relatively less effectiv’e for high values of X than for low values- This represents an ordinal interaction. In Figure 1c the regression lines cross. This represents a disordinal interaction.
Treatment II is superior to Treatment I at lower values of X but Treatment I is superior to Treatment II at higher values of X. At a particular value of X, the two treatments appear to be equally effective.
Across a wide spectrum of educational settings, a variety of ATI’s have been uncovered. For example, Remmers (1933) compared lecture and recitation methods and found results favored recitation for high ability students and lecture for low ability students. Calvin, Hoffman, & Harden
(1957) found low ability students did better in group problem solving situations conducted in an authoritarian manner than in groups conducted in a permissive manner. The same difference did not occur for high ability students. Several studies have found that a curriculum which requires frequent testing was most effective for low ability students
(e.g. Badia, Harsh, & Stutts, 1978; Hansen, Kelley, & Weisbrod, 1970).
Recently, comparisons of the Keller Method (PSI) with traditional lecture methods show that the academic performance of low ability students is particularly helped by the Keller Method as opposed to a traditional lecture method (e.g. Badia, et al. 1978).
The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the differential
H Figure 1a. No interaction
Figure 1b. Ordinai interaction.
Figure 1c. Disordinai interaction.
15 Outcome
Treatment I
Treatment II
Aptitude
H, effectiveness of study skills training and behavioral self-regulation
techniques on students with different levels of ability. A secondary
purpose was to examine the differential effectiveness of the two treatments
on students who are observed to have differences in study habits,
differences in motivation for studying, and differences in certain attitudes
toward academic activities.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of thé present study was on the relationship between
individual characteristics, such as academic aptitude and study habits,
study skills instruction, and self-regulation of study behaviors. Each of the variables has been shown to affect student performance, some more than others, but it is not known to what extent the effectiveness of one
(e.g. self-regulation procedures) in influenced by the presence of another
(e.g. aptitude).
One question addressed is whether the effect of a self-regulation program and of study skills instruction on academic performance depend upon a student’s academic aptitude. A second question concerns whether the effect of a self-regulation program and study skills instruction depend upon a student's study habits and attitudes.
American College Test (ACT) scores were used as the measure of academic aptitude because: (l) it has high reliability (KR-20 = .86); (2) it is a widely used measure of aptitude in college settings; and (3) it was available for most of the students in the sample.
The Brown & Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA) was used to indicate differences in student study methods, motivation for
17 studying, and attitudes toward academic life. The SSHA consists of the
following four subscales, with the intercorrelations ranging from .49
to .70:
(1) Delay Avoidance (DA)-lack of procrastination, promptness in
completing assignments, and freedom from delay and distraction.
(2) Work Methods (WM)-use of effective study skills and efficiency
in doing academic assignments.
(3) Teacher Approval (TA)-opinions of teachers and their methods.
(4) Educational Acceptance (EA)-approval of educational objectives,
practices, and requirements.
The SSHA was selected for the following reasons: (1) it is a widely used measure for predicting which students might need special help with
academic skills; (2) it has been used as a measure for the decision
whether to accept or reject a students' participation in self-regulation and study skills experiments; (3) relatively high reliability has been reported for the scales, with test-retest reliability estimates ranging
from .83 to .86 (over a four-week period), and internal consistency
estimates ranging from .87 to .89 (Brown & Holtzman, 1964); (4) it was
considered a possibility that a student* s reported study habits and attitudes would interact with self-regulation and/or study skills instruction for determining academic performance. Specifically, it was hypothesized that
students who scored low on the Delay Avoidance subscale would benefit more from self-regulation procedures while students who scored low on the Work
Methods subscale would benefit more from study skills instruction.
Students enrolled in ten sections of the introductory psychology course
18 at Bowling Green State University during the Winter Quarter, 1980,
participated. The instructors were ten PhD. candidates and were randomly
assigned to one of the following conditions: (l) self-regulation
instructions, (2) study skills instruction, (3) self-regulation and
study skills instruction, (4) no treatment (control) with chapter
outlines required to be handed in to the instructor, and (5) no treatment
(control) with no chapter outlines required. Each condition contained
two sections of introductory psychology with approximately 35-40 students
in each section.
Measures taken at the beginning of the quarter included scores on a
knowledge of psychology pretest, scores on the Brown & Holtzman (1967)
Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, and student withdrawal rate.
Measures taken at the end of the quarter were instructor, course, and
treatment evaluations.
Dependent variables included the score derived from adding each of
the scores of the five midterm tests, and the score obtained on the final exam. The reason that both the midterm test scores and the final exam
score were used as measures of academic achievement was to avoid the possibility that somewhat different measures of student performance may
interact differently with the experimental treatments. A comprehensive final exam is probably measuring long-term retention more than scores received on each of the midterm tests.
19 METHOD
Subj ects
Undergraduate college students (predominately freshman) enrolled in
ten sections of the introductory psychology course at Bowling Green
State University during the Winter Quarter, 1980, participated in the
experiment. The course was taught at either 8:30 or 9:30 a.m. five days a week. Students registered for the course without knowing which instructor was going to teach the course or what the course requirements would be.
The instructors were ten PhD. candidates in psychology, randomly assigned 2 to one of the following conditions: (1) self-regulation instruction,
(2) study skills instruction, (3) self-regulation and study skills instruction, (4) no treatment with chapter outlines required, and (5) no treatment with no chapter outlines required. Each condition consisted of two instructors teaching two sections of introductory psychology, with each section containing approximately 35-40 students.
Procedure
All sections used the same text: Psychology: Its Principles and
Meanings, Third Edition, 1979, by Lyle E. Bourne and Bruce R. Ekstrand.
All instructors used the lecture method and prepared their own lectures over material relevant to the text. The sequence of chapters discussed in class was the same for all sections. Instructors were free to supplement lectures with films, demonstrations, discussions, etc. Five midterm tests were scheduled every other Friday. Tests were composed of multiple- choice items with four alternatives and an essay question. Each instructor
20 was permitted to construct his or her own tests with the restriction that
50 percent (25 questions) of the multiple-choice items on each test for
all sections be identical, and that the number of items on a test be the
same for all sections. The items that were identical for all sections
on each test were of equal difficulty. To assess the difficulty of each
item, an item analysis was performed on every test (including the final
exam) during the preceding quarter in a large section of introductory
psychology (n = 230) and items with equal numbers of students passing 3 were selected. For each of the five midterm tests, the average level
of difficulty was 0.69 (meaning that an item averaged 69 percent of the
students passing it) and for the final exam the average level of difficulty
was 0.70. The final exam was comprehensive, covering material learned
throughout the quarter.
On the first day of class, students in all sections were required to
take a psychology pretest to determine the extent of the students’
knowledge about psychology. This test consisted of multiple-choice items
similar to those the students would experience on the final exam. In
addition, students in all sections were required to answer a questionnaire
designed to determine the extent of the students’ study habits and attitudes
Scores on the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA) were used in
two ways. First, scores on the SSHA were used primarily to determine
whether the sections were equivalent on the Work Methods subscale which
is a measure of the students’ use and knowledge of effective study skills.
The other subscales of the SSHA (Delay Avoidance, Teacher Approval, and
Educational Acceptance) were also used for this purpose. Second, the
21 academic performance of students was regressed onto scores from the SSHA
at the end of the quarter to assess study habits by treatments interactions.
Following the psychology pretest and the SSHA questionnaire, students
in each section received a copy of the course requirements (self-regulation
and/or study skills instructions). Students also' were given a ’’contract”
stating the requirements of the course, the goals and objectives of the
course, and the students’ intention to do his or her best at succeeding
in the course. A copy of the contract is available in Appendix 1. The
student was requested to sign and date the contract and return it to the
instructor. There was no penalty for any student who refused to sign the contract. The purpose of the contract was to insure that students in all conditions understood the course requirements and intended to comply with the requirements to the best of his or her ability. The acknowledgement of each students’ understanding of the course requirements was particularly important since the requirements differed across experimental conditions and were an integral part of the present experiment.
A second purpose of the contract was to provide a source of motivation for maintaining the requirements of the course (study skills and self- regulation procedures). Contracting has been used as an effective tool for gaining a commitment from the student to share in a greater portion of the responsibility for their learning (e.g. Christen, 1976). Although contracting in this instance was not for purposes of individualizing instruction, it was hoped that signing a "contract” would produce a strong and active commitment from the student to (1) appreciate the purposes and goals of the course, and (2) to intentionally participate in the specific
22 procedures outlined in the Instruction handout.
Study Skills Instruction. Students in this condition received direct
instruction in proper study skills on the first day of class. A typed handout was given to each student stating effective study methods
derived from Robinson*s (1970) SQ3R Method. A copy of the study skills, instructions is available in Appendix 2. This handout was prepared by the experimenter. Upon receiving the study skills handout, students were asked to silently read the material while the instructor read aloud the same instructions. Examples of the effective use of Robinson’s SQ3R
Method were given and the students were asked to actively participate in learning how to use this method by going through the examples with the instructor. Students were encouraged to make the effort to learn and use the study methods outlined in the handout. They were told that several studies demonstrated that the use of these study methods resulted in an increase in test scores and that the faculty wanted to assess the effects of these techniques in introductory psychology.
The students were instructed to carry the study skills handout with them every day and to refer to it when necessary. Approximately once a week the students were given in-class exercises of the SQ3R Method.
Passages were taken from the chapter currently under study and were used as examples in the exercises. Copies of the SQ3R Exercises are available in Appendix 3. Students were required to read the passage, applying the
SQ3R approach to learning the material in the passage. The results of the exercises were discussed orally in Class and suggestions made on how to improve retention of the material. Students were told that toward the
23 end of the first week of the quarter they would be given a quiz based on
the study techniques outlined in the handout and that it would be graded.
The purpose of the quiz was to motivate students to read and learn the
study procedures and not to take the information contained in the handout
lightly. A copy of the SQ3R quiz is available in Appendix 4.
The students were also required to turn in an outline of each chapter
as it was being covered in class. The structure of the outline was to
be in accordance with the SQ3R Method and not over one page in length.
Receipt or non-receipt of the outline was recorded for each student by marking a (+) or a (-), respectively. The student was told that the accuramulation of (+) and (-) may affect his or her final course grade
if their placement in the total point distribution at the end of the quarter was borderline. Borderline was defined as within 5-10 points of
the next highest letter grade.
Self-Regulation Instructions. Students in this condition received direct instruction In self-regulation methods on the first day of class. A typed handout was distributed to all students outlining self-regulation procedures gathered from Kanfer (1980) and Thoresen & Mahoney (1974). A copy of the instructions is available in Appendix 5. The procedures described in the handout were those which have been shown in previous studies to significantly alter behavior, as compared to those procedures which were examined and found not to significantly affect behavior. For example, Mount & Tirrell (l977) compared three different self-monitoring instructions. Students were asked to either record the amount of daily study time on index cards, graph paper, or both. Results showed final exam
24 scores were superior for students using both note cards and graph paper
as compared to scores of students using either method alone.
Students were asked to silently read the material while the instructor
read aloud the same material. Instructors carefully went over examples of
self-regulation techniques during this time and answered any questions.
The students were told that several studies have shown that test scores
have increased as a result of the use of these procedures and that the
faculty wished to evaluate the effect of these techniques on introductory
psychology students. Students were also told that in several days they
would be given a short quiz on self-regulation procedures presented in
the handout. Reasons for presenting this quiz were essentially the same as those discussed in the study skills group. A copy of this quiz is available in Appendix 6.
Students were given a set of 3" x 5',’ index cards, one for each day, at the initial meeting and asked to record the date for each day prior to
the first test on each card. That is, if there were 14 days before the
first test, each student was given 14 index cards. On the day of the test,
each student was given a set of cards ocrresponding to the next test.
Students were instructed to carry the cards with them (in their shirt pocket or purse) each day and to record the amount of time they spent studying for psychology for that day. The study time was to be marked down on the cards immediately following the study period, rather than waiting until the end of the day and marking it down at one time. Students were not to include as study time the time spent in class or watching films; only time spent reading the textbook, reviewing class notes, and talking with other
25 students about class-related issues was to be counted. Also on these
cards the students were told to enter the number, of pages read from the
text or from other course materials for that day. Each day the student was told to turn in the previous days’ card to a designated student in the class who in turn placed the cards in an envelope, sealed the
envelope, and dropped it into a box on the second floor of the Psychology
Building (mailroom). Students were explicitly told that their study records would not in any way influence their grade and that the instructor would not see these records. They were told that it was very important
to keep accurate records and that they would not have to study any more or less than usual. These instructions were given to students to insure that if study time increased during the quarter, that it be a result of the self-regulation process, per se, and not because of direct instructions by the instructor.
In addition to the index cards, each student was given a graph displaying the seven days of the week along the abscissa and 0-4.80 minutes along the ordinate. Students were instructed to post the graph in a prominent place in their room at home and each night before going to bed they were to record the total amount of studying they had done for that day in psychology. A second graph was given to each student displaying the days of the week on the abscissa and 0-75 pages along the ordinate.
Students were told to record the total number of pages read for that day.
On each graph given to the students a line was drawn parallel to the abscissa through the seven days of the week intersecting at a specific point on the ordinate. For the graph designed to display study time the
26 line intersected the ordinate at 60 minutes. For the graph displaying the number of pages read, the line intersected the ordinate at 10 pages.
For each graph the parallel line represented a criterion of performance set by the experimenter and which functioned as an explicit goal toward which each student should aspire.
There was no reward nor was there a penalty for a students* achieving or failing to achieve the goal set by the experimenter. In other words, any desire to increase the amount of studying done by students in this condition should stem from any self-reactions occurring as a consequence of evaluating performance against the standard, and not from any expect ations of external reward. Students were required to hand in the two graphs on the day of the test and were also required to hand in an outline of each chapter (one page in length) similar to the request of students in the other conditions.
An important question concerned the amount of inaccuracy and/or cheating that would occur in reporting daily study time and pages read.
Although some cheating undoubtedly occurred, the extent of cheating was evaluated via a post-quarter questionnaire given to students prior to the final exam. Efforts to minimize inaccurate reporting were as follows:
(l) signing a contract stating agreement to participate and to obey all instructions, (2) stress on the fact that failure to study would not affect the student’s course grade, (3) instilling in the student a degree of expectancy for success by indicating that past studies have found a positive effect on test scores with these techniques, (4) requiring
27 students to hand in the record of study time each day rather than once a week provided constant- attention to be paid to the self-regulation procedure.
No Treatment. Students in the no treatment condition received neither self-regulation instructions nor study skills training. The instructor was told to teach the sections in this condition in his or her normal manner with no dramatic variation on the traditional lecture format.
Students in two sections were required to hand in an outline of each chapter (one page in length) as were students in the other treatment conditions and were told that this outline may be helpful in studying for the tests. Students in two additional sections were not required to hand in an outline of each chapter. Thus, a total of four sections were in a no treatment condition, two sections required an outline of each chapter from each student and two sections did not.
Summary of Experimental Design
Each condition contained two independent sections of introductory psychology, each with an enrollment of approximately 35-40 students.
The experimental conditions were:
(1) Self-Regulation Instructions
(2) Study Skills Instructions
(3) Self-Regulation and Study Skills Instructions
(4) No Treatment-Chapter Outline Required
(5) No Treatment-No Chapter Outline Required
To assess the equivalence of sections between and across experimental
28 conditions prior to instituting treatment, several pre-quarter measures were examined: (l) scores on the Brown «St Holtzman (1967) Survey of
Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA), (2) scores on the American College
Testing Program (ACT), (3) scores on the knowledge of psychology pretest, and (4) student withdrawal rate. To assess the effectiveness of treatments, total points obtained on the midterm tests (i.e. total points=
Test 1 + Test 2 + Test 3 + Test 4 + Test 5) and total points earned on the final exam were used. In addition, course and instructor evaluations were taken from students at the end of the quarter to determine if differences existed in sections between and across conditions. Also taken at the end of the quarter was student opinion and comments regarding the particular treatment instructions he or she received.
29 RESULTS
Equivalence of Groups
An analysis of variance, nested design, was computed to test for mean differences between students in the five experimental groups on the following variables: (1) scores on the knowledge of psychology pretest,
(2) scores on each of the SSHA subscales, and (3) scores on the ACT
Composite. Mean scofes on each of the measures for the experimental groups are available in Appendix 7. Also available in Appendix 7 are the percentile norms for college freshmen on the four SSHA subscales.
A nested design was used to determine if differences between sections contributed substantially to differences between treatment groups. In other words, section effects were nested under the treatment factor.
No significant differences were found between students in the five treatment groups on any of the variables examined. Student withdrawal rate was comparable across all groups (Z.10%) and the number of students changing from one experimental group to another was zero for all sections except for one section in the self-regulation plus study skills condition. Two students expressed a desire to drop that particular section and enter a section which did not contain the requirements of self-regulation and study skills instruction. Sections which required chapter outlines did not differ in the number of students completing and turning in outlines (Z.5). Most, if not all, students complied with this requirement. Scores on the study skills quiz and on the self-regulation quiz indicated all students adequately understood the treatment requirements. All students signed and dated the
30 contract on the first day of class. Because the number of copies of the
SSHA was limited, students in the no treatment condition which required
no outline were not able to respond on the SSHA. Consequently, scores
on this measure for this condition were not available. t
Aptitude by Treatment Interactions
The regression model was used to test whether experimental treatment
interacted with scores on the ACT Composite or with scores on the SSHA
subscales. The total number of points obtained on the midterm tests and
the final exam score were regressed onto ACT Composite scores and scores on
each of the SSHA subscales. Coded vectors were created to indicate
membership in the five treatment groups. The two-way interaction terms
were created by multiplying the raw scores of the two variables representing
the specific interaction. For example, the interaction term of ACT with
Treatment was created by multiplying each students’ ACT score by the coded vector indicating membership in an experimental group. The resultant vector when added to the multiple regression equation represented the interaction. Higher-order interactions were created by multiplying each
students' score on the three variables representing the specific interaction.
For example, the interaction of ACT by Work Methods by Treatment was created by first multiplying each students' ACT score by his or her Work Methods score and then multiplying this resultant value by the value indicating membership in the specific treatment group. This newly created vector of scores represented the three-way interaction.
Stepwise regression procedures were used to test statistical significance
31 of the interaction terms. In all cases, the effects of the interactions
were assessed independently of the assessment of the main effects ty
examining the incremental variance accounted for ty the interaction after
the main effects had been added to the regression equation. Examination of
scattergrams indicated that relationships could be adequately expressed
by a linear model.
Total Points on Midterm Tests. Significant interactions of experimental
treatment by ACT Composite included the following: self-regulation, F
(9,346) = 9.51, £¿.05; study skills, F (9.346) = 7.12, £¿..05; and
self-regulation plus study skills, F (9,346) = 6.69, £¿.05. A summary
of the stepwise regression analysis is presented in Appendix 8.
Figure 2 shows the separate regression lines for each condition on
total points obtained on midterm tests. Both instruction in self
regulation procedures and instruction in study skills appeared to benefit
above average students more than no treatment. Low ability students,
however, did not benefit. In fact, students with below average ability
performed at a lower level than students who did not receive these instructions
Examination of Figure 2 shows that the separate regression lines
for students in self-regulation and outline-control groups converge and
cross at the point 19.65 on the X axis (ACT Composite). It appears from
this figure that students with ACT Composite scores above 19.65 are helped more by self-regulation instruction while students with ACT Composite scores
below 19.65 are helped more if they are not asked to self-regulate their
study behaviors. The Johnson & Neyman (1936) technique was used to determine the points above and below the intersection of the two regression
32 Figure 2. Regression of midterm test points on ACT Composite scores
for all conditions.
33 zr *■)
Y’=61.03 + 1.53(act) Self-P.egulation Group
Y'=59.02 + 1.44(ACT) Study Skills Group
Y'=61.93 + 1.42(ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y’=83.A5 + .39(ACT) Outline-Control Group
Midterm Test Y'=91.34 + .38 (ACT) No Outline-Control Group Pointe . 150 T
100
50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
i C Oj ;.^jOO .7. t C lines (self-regulation and outline-control) where there were significant differences in the total number of points earned on the midterm tests.
This technique showed that students in the self-regulation group with
ACT Composite scores above 29.90 generally obtained more points on the midterm tests than did students in the outline-control group with similar
ACT Composite scores (pC.05). Students with ACT Composite scores of
10.4-8 or below did significantly worse than students in the outline- control group with similar ACT scores (£<.05).
An examination of the separate regression lines for students in study skills and outline-control groups in Figure 2 show the lines converge and cross at the point 23.06 on the X axis (ACT Composite). From this figure, it appears that students with ACT Composite scores above 23.06 benefit more by study skills instruction and students with ACT Composite scores below 23.06 are generally helped more if they are not given training in effective study skills. The regions of significance computed by the
Johnson & Neyman technique show that students in the study skills group with ACT Composite scores.above 26.03 generally obtain more points on the midterm tests than did students in the outline-control group with comparable
ACT scores (£<.05). Students in the study skills group with ACT scores of 7.4-0 and below did significantly worse than students in the outline- control group with similar ACT scores.
Examination of the regression line for students in the condition containing both self-regulation training and study skills instruction reveal little difference between the performance of students in this condition and the performance of students in the study skills condition. The
35 regression line for the combined treatment condition almost overlaps that of the study skills condition. A comparison of the regression line for the self-regulation condition and the regression line for the study skills condition indicate very small differences with the performance of students in the self-regulation group slightly greater across all values of the
ACT Composite.
The regression lines for the two no treatment conditions (outline- control and no outline-control) show students in the no outline-control group outperformed students in the outline-control group across all values of the
ACT Composite. The slopes for the two regression lines are almost identical.
A combined score, derived from adding the scores from each of the five midterm tests, obscured the development of any trends that may have occurred as the 10-week course progressed. That is, it is possible that self-regulation procedures were more effective during the early weeks of the quarter and study skills training was more effective during the later weeks, or vice versa. To determine if any interquarter differences existed among the treatment conditions, regression lines were drawn for each of the five midterm tests. These figures are available in Appendix 9 together with the mean scores on each test for all experimental groups. Examination of the regression analysis for individual tests revealed self-regulation procedures benefited above average students more than did any other treatment on Tests 1,2, and 3. On Test 4, however, study skills training appeared to have a slightly greater effect on performance for above average students than did self-regulation procedures, although both treatments are exceeded by the no outline-control group. On Test 5, the combined treatment of
36 self-regulation procedures and study skills instruction benefited above average students more than each treatment alone, and more than no treatment.
Scores on the Final Exam. Significant interactions of experimental treatment by ACT Composite included the following: self-regulation plus study skills,
F (9.34-6) = 19.85, pc.05; butline-control, F (9,346) = 2.69, £^.05; self-regulation, F (9,346) = 4*48, £<«05; and study skills, F (9,346) =
2.04, £<.05. A summary of the stepwise regression analysis is presented in Appendix 10.
Figure 3 shows the separate regression lines for each condition on final exam scores. The combined treatment of self-regulation plus study skills instruction benefited higher ability students more than any other treatment. The separate regression lines for students in the self-regulation plus study skills group and in the outline-control group converge and cross at the point 20.60 on the X axis (ACT Composite). Thus, it appears from this figure that students with ACT Composite scores above 20.60 are helped more by the combined treatment of self-regulation procedures and study skills instruction while students with ACT scores below 20.60 actually do worse with the combined treatment than students who receive no treatment.
The Johnson & Neyman technique established that students in the combined treatment group with ACT Composite scores above 24.34 generally performed better on the final exam than did students in the outline-control group with comparable ACT scores (£<.05). Students with ACT Composite scores below 25.65, however, obtained scores on the final exam significantly below those of students in the outline-control condition with similar ACT scores
(£<.05).
37 Figure 3. Regression of final exam scores on ACT Composite scores
for all conditions.
38 Y’=15.95 + .45(ACT) Self-R' lation
Y'=17.23 + .37 (ACT) Study Skills
Y'= 8.62 + .80(ACT) Self-Regulation +Study Skills Y'=25.55 - .02 (ACT) Outline-Control
Y’=23.72 + .17(ACT) No Outline-Control X
Final Exam Score 30-
20“*
X
10-
i _L ■f 1 I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite
CP -o Students with self-regulation training who scored high on the ACT
Composite slightly outperformed comparable students with study skills training. The separate regression lines for these two groups converge and cross at the point 16.76 on the X axis (ACT Composite). Thus, students with ACT scores above 16.76 benefit more from self-regulation procedures than students with study skills training while students with
ACT scores below 16.76 generally benefit more by training in study skills.
Calculations of regions of significance indicate that significant differences between self-regulation and study skills groups lie outside the range of interest. In other words, within the range of ACT Composite scores observed, no significant difference was found between self-regulation and study skills groups on final exam performance.
Study Habits by Treatment Interactions
For a review of the SSHA subscales, please see page 18. For the regression of midterm test points on SSHA subscales, the following interactions were significant: Delay Avoidance by study skills interaction, F (23,256) =
2.62, £<¿.05; Work Methods by self-regulation interaction, F (23,256) =
3.11, £<.05; Teacher Approval by study skills interaction, F (23, 256) =
2.62, £<.05. For the regression of final exam scores on SSHA subscales, the following interactions were significant: Work Methods by self-regulation interaction, F (23,256) = 4.17, £<.05; Work Methods by self-regulation plus study ¿kills interaction, F (23,256) = 3.49, £<.05; Teacher Approval by study skills interaction, F (23,256) = 2.18, £<.05; and Teacher Approval by self-regulation plus study skills interaction, F (23, 256) = 4.25, £<.05.
40 Of interest in the present experiment was the regression of total midterm test points and final exam scores onto the Delay Avoidance and
Work Methods subscales of the SSHA for each treatment condition. Strong differences were observed between experimental conditions on the Delay
Avoidance and Work Methods subscales. Results of the regression of midterm test points and final exam scores on the Teacher Approval and
Educational Acceptance subscales, however, revealed no strong differences between the subscales among the treatment conditions. For the interested reader, Figures which show the regression lines for the Teacher Approval and Educational Acceptance subscales are presented in Appendix 11. Only the Delay Avoidance and Work Methods subscales are discussed below. A summary of the stepwise regression analysis for each of the four subscales is presented in Appendix 12, together with the intercorrelation matrix of the five midterm tests, the final exam, the ACT Composite, and the SSHA subscales.
Figures 4 and 5 show the separate regression lines for each condition on total points obtained on midterm tests for the Delay Avoidance and
Work Methods subscales, respectively. Self-regulation procedures appeared to benefit students who scored high on the Delay Avoidance subscale more than did study skills training (Figure 4)• However, study skills training appeared to benefit students who scored high on the Work Methods subscale more than did self-regulation procedures (Figure 5). Differences between the two treatments were not observed for students who scored low on either the Delay Avoidance or the Work Methods subscale.
Figures 6 and 7 show the separate regression lines for each condition
41 Figure 4« Regression of midterm test points on the Delay Avoidance
subscale for all conditions.
42 ------Y’=59.61 + .39(CA) Self Regula tion
------Y’=57.07 + .16(DA) Study Skills
------Y’=62.14 + .32(DA) Self-Regulation + Study skills
------Y'=84.08 + .88 (DA) Outline-Control
Midterm Test Points .
150T
100- “
"+ i I ...... I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Delay Avoidi-;nc: Figure 5. Regression of midterm test points on the Work Methods
subscale for all conditions.
44 Y’=59.61 - .93(WM) Self-Regulation
Y'=57.07 + .12(VJM) Study Skills
Y ’ =62.14 - .06 (WM) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y'=84.08 - .11 (WM) Outline-Control
Midterm Test Points
150
100
50
H------|------1------j------{- -4- —I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Work Methods Figure 6 Regression of final exam scores on the Delay Avoidance
subscale for all conditions.
46 ------Y’=15.85 + .21(DA) Self-Regulation 3-
------Y’=l6.6i - .01(DA) Study Skills
------Y* = 4.25 + .10(DA) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
------.... yi=27,A2 + ,1O(DA) Outline-Control
Final Exam Scores
-4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Delay Avoidance Figure 7. Regression of final exam scores on the Work Methods
subscale for all conditions. ©■* ------Y’=15.85 - .15(WM) S eIf-Re gula tion
------— Y'=i6.6i + .04(WM) Study Skills
------Y'= 4.25 - .08(2M) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
------yt=27.42 + .19(WM) Outline-Control
Final Exam Scores
30
20
10
+------1------1------1------(" H------I———I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Work Methods on final exam scores for the Delay Avoidance and Work Methods subscales, respectively. The differences between the self-regulation and study skills groups is evident also in final exam performance. Self-regulation instruction benefited students across all scores on the Delay Avoidance subscale with the greatest benefit occurring for students with high scores
(Figure 6). The Delay Avoidance score above which significant differences exist between the two treatment groups is 24.04 (£<.05). On the other hand, study skills instruction benefited students across all scores on the Work Methods subscale with the greatest benefit occurring for students with high scores (Figure 7). The Work Methods score above which the two treatments differ significantly is 23.51 (£<.05).
Course and Instructor Evaluations
During the last week of the quarter, each student was asked to rate the introductory psychology course and his or her instructor. Copies of the course and instructor evaluations are available in Appendix 13.
Analysis between the five experimental groups indicated no significant differences on the overall ratings given the course or the instructor.
On the day of the final exam, students in the groups receiving self regulation and/or study skills instruction were asked to answer several questions pertaining to the experimental treatments they received.
Copies of the questions are available in Appendix 14, together with the mean responses obtained for each question. Results show that students with self-regulation training had a moderately favorable attitude toward the procedures. However, this attitude may have been tempered by the negative
50 reaction of some students regarding the failure to give experimental credit for their participation. This reaction was expressed in written comments encouraged by the questionnaire. Students also reported that the records kept of daily study time and the number of pages read each day were accurate most of the time.
Available in Appendix 15 are tables showing the mean study time reported, the mean number of pages read, and the proportion of study time computed from student records prior to each test, for students in the self-regulation group and for students in the self-regulation plus study skills group. Also available is the intercorrelation matrix of the five midterm tests, the study time and pages read reported, and the proportion of study time for the two groups. The proportion of study time was computed by counting the number of days a student reported studying out of the total possible days prior to a test. For example, if there were 14 days before a test and a student turned in study time records showing that he or she studied 7 of those 14 days, the proportion of study time would be
0.50. The only consistent difference revealed from these tables is that students in the self-regulation group reported studying more for every test than did students in the combined treatment of self-regulation plus study skills training.
For students who received the SQ3R Study Method, a common remark was that the method took up too much time, especially for students with a moderate or heavy course load. Students generally indicated that they only used the
SQ3R Method sometimes and that they probably would not use the method in other courses.
51 DISCUSSION
Self-Regulation
The finding that self-regulation techniques generally improved performance of students with above average ability while not helping those students with below average ability may explain the inability of some studies to find an effect with self-regulation (e.g. Greiner &
Karoly, 1976; Grundle, 1975; McCrae, 1976; Tichenor, 1977). It has been standard procedure to select students to be in an experiment who confess to having study problems, who want to improve their study habits, or who have a minimum grade point average (e.g. Greiner &
Karoly, 1976; Groveman, et al. 1977; Mahoney, et al. 1973; Mount &
Tirrell, 1977; Richards, et al. 1976; Ziesat, et al. 1978). The implicit assumption has been that if a facilitating effect exists for self-regulation, it would be most easily observed in students with low academic performance. The present study does not support this assumption. The results suggest that self-regulation procedures may improve academic performance for students with above average academic ability but not for students with below average academic ability.
Several reasons are suggested why low ability students performed differently from high ability students. One is that high ability students used the procedures consistently and low ability students used the procedures inconsistently or not at all. The present study did not distinguish between individuals who used the procedures and those that
52 did not. But it is possible to speculate as to why some individuals
appeared to benefit from self-regulation while others did not. It may
be that students with low academic ability are especially sensitive to
one or more of the components of the self-regulation process. The
self-regulation model, as described by Kanfer (198O), includes three
distinct stages. The self-monitoring stage occurs when the individual
deliberately pays close attention to his or her behavior, often in association
with certain expectations of what will happen when the behavior is
carried out. These expectations might be called performance criteria
or standards. The second stage is called the self-evaluation stage and
occurs when the individual makes comparisons between the information obtained from the self-monitoring stage and criteria for the behavior.
If the comparison is favorable, satisfaction with oneself may occur, but if the comparison is unfavorable, dissatisfaction and possibly self- criticism may occur. The third stage is the administration of self reinforcement contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the behavior.
Positive self-reinforcement should result in the maintenance of the behavior.
Considerable evidence indicates that the degree of behavior change can depend upon the specific procedures employed during any one of the stages in the self-regulation process. For example, Mount & Tirrell (1977) showed that the method that students used to monitor their study time affected the extent of improvement in exam scores. Index cards and graphs were more effective than simply cards or graphs alone. It is possible that methods optimal for some students are not optimal for others.
53 The expectations and performance criteria established by the individual
is also important. Although positive expectations were established on
the first day of class regarding benefits of the self-regulation
procedures, it is possible that some students may require extensive
preparation before beginning treatment. Comparisons between individuals
who have successfully achieved control over conflicting behaviors
(e.g. study or watch TV) and those individuals who have not achieved
control indicate that successful self-controllers had higher standards
for change and had positive expectations as to the benefits of the techniques
The role of self-reward appears to be especially important in
effecting behavior change. Perri & Richards (1977) found that individuals
who were described as successful self-controllers used self-reward
procedures, which included covert and overt reinforcers, over three times
as often as unsuccessful individuals. The failure of some students to
effect change in the present experiment may have been due to a lack of
sufficient self-generated reinforcement for trying to change. Some
students may benefit more from initially more explicit and overt reinforcers.
A gradual shift from externally-prescribed reinforcement to internally-
generated reinforcement may be necessary for low ability students. High
ability students may not need the external support overt reinforcement
generates.
Apart from the self-regulation model itself, self-regulation
techniques place the burden of responsibility for changing behavior on the student himself. Kanfer (1980) has outlined five reasons why individuals may be reluctant to assume responsibility for change. One
54 or more of these reasons may have contributed to the failure of the
present self-regulation procedures to improve performance for low ability
students. First, some individuals have life-long dependency patterns,
exhibiting passive behavior and encouraging the transfer of responsibility
onto others. The observation that low ability students tend to do better
in highly structured, authoritarian-style classrooms (Calvin, et al. 1957)
lends some support to this argument. Second, individuals may be
reluctant to change simply because the consequences of the change are
unknown. That is, change can be aversive for some individuals. Third,
individuals may have developed a ’learned helplessness’ pattern over the
years, learning that their own behaviors have no strong influence on the
eventual outcome, and therefore, not even trying. Fourth, some individuals may want to change but lack the skills for initiating change. Extensive
training in behavior-change techniques may be necessary for some individuals more so than for others. Fifth, the positive consequences associated with not studying (e.g. dating, TV) may cause the individual to maintain the status quo and avoid that responsibility for initiating change.
In summary, the lack of improvement in exam performance for students with low academic ability may rest with the self-regulation procedures themselves, or directly with the student. Future investigations will have to decide if specific self-control procedures are optimal for some students but not for others. In the event that the lack of improvement observed rests primarily with the student, self-regulation programs may require adjunctive individual or group counseling and theraputic attention.
55 Study Skills
Training in the SQ3R Study Method generally, helped students with
above average ability more than students with below average ability. As
with experiments in self-regulation, investigators routinely restrict
their subject population to those students who, it is assumed, will be
helped the most. Yet the results of this experiment suggest that low ability students were not particularly helped by training in the SQ3R Study
Method. There are several reasons why this should occur. First, low ability students may not use study techniques even though they know what
they are. Weigel & Weigel (1967) found that students did, in fact, know proper study methods but admitted to not using them. The post-quarter questionnaire given to students in the study skills group generally supported this observation. Several students commented that the SQ3R
Method took too much time and that they did not use it consistently.
However, students with average and above average ability appeared to be helped with study skills training. Why one group should decide to use the study methods and another not is unclear. A second explanation may relate to individual motivation. Rednar & Weinbe (1970) and Robyak (1978) concluded that poor academic achievement was a function of both a deficit in study skills and emotional and psychological adjustment problems.
The latter may not be helped by simply providing training in study methods.
To lend support to this view, Bednar & Weinberg (1970) reviewed twenty-three studies that evaluated the effectiveness of various treatment programs for underachieving college students. A comparison of studies that used group counseling, individual counseling, and study skills courses, or
56 combinations of these three treatments revealed that study skills courses
used alone was generally not effective in improving the grade-point
average of students. Improvement was observed, however, when study skills
courses were used in combination with either group or individual
counseling. Bednar & Weinberg (1970) also compared studies using
'’volunteer” versus "forced" subject participation and found that 80%
of the studies using volunteer subjects reported positive findings while
only 55% of the studies using forced subjects reported positive findings.
The fact that subjects in the present experiment were allowed to transfer
into a section of introductory psychology that did not require either
self-regulation or study skills procedures may not have been perceived by the students as "volunteer” participation since, by remaining in the section, he or she was required to participate in the treatment program.
This perception may have contributed to the lack of improvement in exam performance for low ability students. This assumption requires, however, that the effect of "forced" versus "volunteer" participation differentially affect low and high ability students, since high ability students benefited from both self-regulation procedures and study skills training, while low ability students did not.
A third explanation may relate to the observation that Goldiamond
(1965) made when attempting to help one student improve his academic performance through behavioral self-control techniques. Goldiamond met with only limited success. His frustration evident, Goldiamond viewed the student's class homework as a behavioral definition of stupidity. The reason for the 1 im.1 ted improvement despite a one-to-one tutorial was what
57 Goldiamond called a "behavioral systematic sequence" existing for this
student. That is, the acquisition of one behavior depends upon the
prior existence of another. For example, it is very difficult to adequately
understand international trade if one lacks a basj.c knowledge of geography.
Explicit instruction in the SQ3R Study Method may not substantially
improve performance of low ability students if they lack the prerequisites needed to understand the material.
Although the explanations discussed above may have contributed to the
failure of the SQ3R Method to improve performance for low ability students,
it is possible to help lower ability students without resorting to
special counseling centers or to intensive remedial classes. For example, instituting frequent quizzes and exams appears to benefit low ability
students more than high ability students (Badia, et al. 1978). The
Keller Method (PSI), with its* frequent quizzes and immediate feedback, also benefits low ability students (Badia, et al. 1978).
In summary, the failure of low ability students to be helped by training in the SQ3R Study Method in the present study may have been due to the failure of students to use the method, or to deficiencies in low ability students which study skills instruction did not affect. The deficiencies may be psychological or they may be related to basic knowledge and learning skills. However, the fact that low ability students can be helped through frequent quizzing and immediate feedback lends support to the notion that psychological adjustment problems and a lack of prerequisites play a secondary role in maintaining poor performance.
58 SSHA Subscales
Weights of the regression equations for the.SSHA subscales should be
interpreted with caution since the subscales are intercorrelated. It is
thought, however, that an analysis of the Delay Avoidance and Work Methods
subscales is relevant to the present experiment and may provide information not previously available.
A high score on the Delay Avoidance subscale indicates that the individual is not easily distracted from completing academic assignments, usually hands in assignments on time, and generally does not procrastinate when it comes to studying. Regression of final exam scores on the Delay
Avoidance subscale indicated that students who scored high on the scale performed better on the final exam if they received self-regulation instructions than if they received study skills training. In other words, self-regulation procedures facilitated an already acquired habit of avoiding delays in studying. Interestingly, self-regulation procedures did not appear to facilitate delay avoidance in those students who scored low on the scale. The fact that self-regulation procedures facilitated performance for students scoring high on the Delay Avoidance scale while study skills training did not may indicate that self-regulation procedures affected characteristics measured by the Delay Avoidance subscale while study skills training did not.
Further evidence on this point is provided by the regression of final exam scores on the Work Methods subscale. High scores on the Work Methods subscale indicate a knowledge and use of effective study methods. A negative correlation was observed between performance on the final exam
59 and scores on the Work Methods scale for students given self-regulation instructions. Self-regulation procedures appeared to help students who scored low on the Work Methods scale more than it did students who scored high on the scale. The same difference, however, was not observed for students with study skills training. Study skills training appeared to benefit students equally well along the Work Methods scale, with students outperforming those with self-regulation procedures, particularly for those with high Work Methods scores.
SUMMARY
Significant aptitude by treatment interactions were found. Self regulation training benefited students of above average ability more than did no treatment and slightly above study skills instruction. Low ability students, however, did not benefit from self-regulation procedures or study skills training. This finding is in contrast to the assumption implicit in self-regulation and study skills experiments that low ability students and underachievers would benefit the most from such treatment, and might explain the failure of some studies to find positive results. The finding that low ability students were not helped by study skills training was unexpected and may indicate that other factors, perhaps psychological, mediate poor performance.
The treatment combining both self-regulation procedures and study skills training benefited high ability students more than either treatment alone on the final exam. On the midterm tests, however, self-regulation generally appeared to benefit high ability students more than study skills instruction or the combined treatments.
60 Interactions involving several of the SSHA subscales and experimental treatments were significant. Self-regulation procedures benefited students who scored high on the Delay Avoidance subscale more than did study skills training. On the Work Methods subscale, instruction in study skills benefited students with high scores more than self-regulation procedures.
Students who scored low on the Work Methods subscale did not appear to benefit from study skills instruction.
In summary, the results of the present experiment suggest that self-regulation procedures nor explicit instruction in the SQ3R Study
Method offer an effective method for improving the academic performance of below average students but may provide improvement for above average students. Based upon recent educational research, alternatives such as individualized instruction, personalized instruction, and tutorial programs are better able to help the below average student adjust and compete with others for academic recognition.
61 FOOTNOTES
^This interpretation of self-reinforcement is contrary to the interpretation offered by Goldiamond (1976) but is consistent with statements made by
Mahoney (1976), Thoresen & Wilbur (1978) and Bandura (1978). Goldiamond advocates an interpretation of self-reinforcement that affords no place for cognitive or mediational events in explaining reinforcement. He insists that there is no operant contingency unless it is independently defined by the external enviornment, either by another person or the
"natural" consequences of the response itself (e.g. a lessening of hunger following an eating response). This narrow view of the concept of reinforcement is contested by Mahoney (1976) and others who argue that the notion that the pigeon has absolutely no potential influence on the relationship between his operant responding and the machine-mediated consequence is false. The influence is there in the procedures of shaping or stretching an intermittent schedule. The contingencies of a bad pecker are different from those contingencies of a good pecker. The point is that both often show changes in their behavior following changes in the other’s behavior.
The interpretation of self-reinforcement used here is not meant as an acceptance of an inner agent called "self," nor is it an acceptance of free will or self-determinism. Rather, the terms self-reinforcement and self-punishment are used in operational ways to describe patterns of behaviors for which externally visible influences are inconspicuous. It is not the intention of this investigator to enter into a debate about the
62 "prime mover" of behavior, that is, whether behavior springs from the influence of internal events or because of external events. Such a debate is futile and is not relevant to the purpose of the present study.
It is reasonable to assume a reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978) that recognizes the continuing and dynamic interaction between the external environment and the person’s internal as well as external actions. This complex interdependence assumes no a priori deterministic primacy.
2 The instructors were randomly assigned to the conditions in the following manner. From the original number of 13 instructors teaching introductory psychology during the Winter Quarter, 1980, ten were drawn randomly
(random number table) by code number. Both instructors (10) and conditions (5) were assigned code numbers, and through successive drawing, each condition was paired with two instructors until all selections were filled.
3 The questions used on each of the five midterm tests and the final exam were selected from questions used in Dr. Pietro Badia's section of introductory psychology (Psy. 201), Fall, 1979. The enrollment was approximately 230 students, the exact number taking a specific test varying from test to test. Each test consisted of two forms, A and B, containing identical questions but numbered differently (e.g. question 25 on Form A was question 36 on Form B). An item analysis was performed on each form of the test. Therefore, twelve separate item analyses were performed, two for each test (five midterm tests plus the final exam).
Two statistics were used in selecting questions for use in the
63 current research. One statistic was the difficulty of an item and was
defined as the proportion (PROP) of subjects in the sample who passed it.
The second statistic was the discrimination power of an item, measured
by the point-biserial correlation (RPBI). This statistic indicated the
relationship between the item score (correct or incorrect) and the total
test score. A high RPBI indicated a positive correlation between the
item and the score on the test. Items which achieved a PROP of between
0.30 and 0.90 and the highest RPBI obtainable were selected. The PROP
and RPBI for questions on Form A and Form B were averaged and the average value of PROP and RPBI used in the selection. Examination of differences
in PROP between Forms A and B indicated very small changes in PROP.
However, differences in RPBI between Forms A and B were significantly
greater. Therefore, the PROP was the most important criterion used in
selecting items, although RPBI was not ignored and an effort was made to
select items with the highest possible RPBI.
Twenty-five questions were selected for each of the midterm tests and 30 questions selected for the final exam. The twenty-five questions on each test averaged to a PROP of 0.69, indicating the leyel of difficulty for each test was 0.69. The final exam questions averaged to a level of difficulty of 0.70.
64 REFERENCES
Annis, L. & Davis, J. K. The effect of encoding and an external memory
device on note taking. Journal of Experimental Education. 1975, 44.
44—46.
Annis, L. Davis, J. K. Study techniques and cognitive styles: their
effect on recall and recognition. Journal of Educational Research.
1978, 71(3). 175-178.
Anthony, W. Z. The effect of behavioral self-control procedures on
academic performance. Dissertation Abstracts. 1974.
Atlee, J. D. Teaching self-control techniques to motivate study behavior
in college students. Dissertation Abstracts. 1975.
Badia, P., Harsh, J., & Stutts, C. An assessment of methods of instruction
and measures of ability. Journal of Personalized Instruction. 1978,
3(2). 69-75.
Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. American
Psychologist. 1978, 33(4). 344-358.
Bednar, B. L. & Weinberg, S. Ingredients of successful treatment programs
for underachievers. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1970, 17. 1-7.
Bellack, A. S., Rozensky, R., & Schwartz, J. A. A comparison of two forms
of self-monitoring in a behavioral weight reduction program. Behavior
Therapy. 1974, 5, 523-530.
Berecz, J. Modification of smloking behavior through self-administered
punishment of imagined behavior: A new approach to aversion therapy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1972, 38. 244-250.
65 Bom, W. G. & Davis, M. L. Amount and distribution of study in a
personalized instruction course and in a lecture course. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1974, 7, 365-375.
Broden, M., Hall, R., & Mitts, B. The effects of self-recording on the
classroom behavior of two eight-grade students. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis. 1971, 4» 191—199.
Bristol, M. M. & Sloane, H. N. Effects of contingency contracting on
study rate and test performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
1974, 7, 271-285.
Brown, W. & Holtzman, W. Survey of study habits and attitudes. New York:
Psychological Corporation, 1967.
Calvin, A. D., Hoffman, F. K., & Harden, E. L. The effect of intelligence
and social atmosphere on group problem solving behavior. Journal of
Social Psychology. 1957, 45. 61-74-
Colwell, M. D. & Entwistle, N. J. Relationship between personality,
study attitudes, and academic performance in a technical college.
British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1971, 41» 85-89.
Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. Aptitude and instructional Methods: A
Handbook for Research on Interaction. New York: Irvington, 1977.
DiVesta, F. J. & Gray, G. S. Listening and note taking. J ournal of
Educational Psychology. 1972, 63. 309-313.
Entwistle, D. R. Evaluations of study-skills courses: a review. Journal
of Educational Research, i960, ¿3» 243-251.
Epstein, R. & Goss, C. M. Case study: a self-control procedure for the
maintenance of nondisruptive behavior in an elementary school child.
Behavior Therapy. 1978, 2, 109-117.
66 Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M. M. Achievement places the
reliability of self-reporting and peer-reporting and their effects
on behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1972, 19-30.
Fowler, R. L. & Backer, A. S. Effectiveness of highlighting for retention
of test material. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1974, ¿2, 358-364.
Glynn, E. L. Classroom applications of self-determined reinforcement.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 2, 123-132.
Goldiamond, I. Self-control procedures in personal behavior problems.
Psychological Reports. 1965, 17. 851-868.
Goldiamond, I. Self-reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
1976, 2, 521-525.
Greiner, J. M. & Karoly, P. Effects of self-control training on study
activity and academic performance: an analysis of self-monitoring,
self-reward, and systematic planning components. Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 1976, 23(6). 495-502.
Groveman, A. M., Richards, C. S., & Caple, R. B. Effects of study skills
counseling versus behavioral self-control techniques in the treatment
of academic performance. Psychological Reports. 1977, 41» 186.
Grundle, T. J. Self-control techniques applied to study behavior.
Dissertation Abstracts. 1975.
Hall, S. Self-control and therapist control in the behavioral treatment
of overweight women. Behavior Research and Therapy. 1972, 10, 59-68.
Hansen, W. L., Kelley, A. C., & Weisbrod, B. A. Economic efficiency and
the distribution of benefits from college instruction. American Economic
Review. 1970, 60(2). 364-369.
67 Howe, M. A. Note-taking strategy, review, and long-term retention of
verbal information. Journal of Educational Research. 1970, 63. 285.
Idstein, P. & Jenkins, J-. R. Underlining versus repetitive reading.
Joumal of Educational Research. 1972, 65. 321-323«
Jackson, B. & Van Zoost, B. Changing study behaviors through reinforcement
contingencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1972, 12, 192-195.
Johnson, S. M. Self-reinforcement versus external reinforcement in
behavior modification with children. Developmental Psychology. 1970,
2, 147-148.
Johnson, S. M. & White, G. Self-observation as an agent of behavior
change. Behavior Therapy. 1971, 2, 488-497.
Kanfer, F. H. Self-monitoring: methodological limitations and clinical
applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1970,
35(2). 148-152.
Kanfer, F. H. Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer and A. P.
Goldstein (Eds.), Helping People Change. Pergamon Press Inc., 1975.
Katz, R. C., Thomas, S. L., & Williamson, P. Effects of self-monitoring
as a function of its expected benefits and incompatible response
training. Psychological Record. 1976, 26, 533-540.
Kazdin, A. E. Reactive self-monitoring: the effects of response
desirability, goal setting, and feedback. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 1974, 42. 704-716.
Kirschenbaum, D. S. & Karoly, P. When self-regulation fails: tests of
some preliminary hypotheses. J oumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
1977, 45(6). 1116-1125.
68 Lipinski, D. P., Black, J. L., & Nelson, R. 0. Influence of motivational
variables on the reactivity and reliability of self-recording. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1975, 43, 637-646.
Lipinski, D. P. & Nelson, R. The reactivity and unreliability of self-
recording. J ournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1974, 41.
118-123.
Locke, E. A. An empirical study of lecture note taking among college
students. Journal of Educational Research. 1977, 7(2). 93-99.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. Motivational effects of
knowledge of results: a goal-setting phenomenon? Psychological
Bulletin. 1968, 70, 474-485.
Lovitt, T. C. & Curtiss, K. A. Academic response rate as a function of
teacher- and self-imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 1969. 2, 49-53.
Mahoney, M. Self-reward and self-monitoring techniques for weight control.
Behavior Therapy. 1974, 3, 48-57.
Mahoney, M. J. Terminal terminology: a self-regulated response to
Goldiamond. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1976, 2» 515-517.
Mahoney, M. J. Research issues in self-management. Behavior Therapy.
1972, 3, 45-63.
Mahoney, M. J., Moura, N. G., & Wade, T. C. Relative efficacy of self-
reward, self-punishment, and self-monitoring techniques for weight loss.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1973, 42» 404-407.
Mahoney, M., Moore, B., Wade, T., & Moura, N. The effects of continuous
and intermittent self-monitoring on academic behavior. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1973, 41» 165-169.
69 Maletzky, B. M. Behavior recording as treatments A brief note.
Behavior Therapy. 1974, 107-111.
McCrae, R. R. Self-control: theories, techniques, and the example of
increasing study time. Dissertation Abstracts. 1976.
McFall, R. M. Effects of self-monitoring on normal smoking behavior.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1970, 35. 135-142.
McNamara, J, R. The use of self-monitoring technique to treat nailbiting.
Behavior Research and Therapy. 1972, 10. 193-194»
Mount, M. K. & Tirrell, F. J. Improving examination scores through
self-monitoring. Journal of Educational Research. 1977, 71(2). 70-73.
Nelson, C. & McReynolds, W. Self-recording and control of behavior: a
reply to Simkins. Behavior Therapy. 1971, 2, 594-597.
Noall, M. S. Effectiveness of different methods of study. J ournal of
Educational Research. 1962, 56. 51-52.
Premack, D. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation (Vol, 13). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Rachlin, H. Self-control. Behaviorism. 1974, 2, 94-107.
Remmers, H. H. Learning, effort, and attitudes as affected by three
methods of instruction in elementary psychology. Purdue University
Studies in Higher Education, 1933, 21.
Richards, C. S. Behavior modification of studying through study skills
advice and self-control procedures. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
1975, 22, 431-436.
Richards, C. S., McReynolds, W. T., Holt, S., & Sexton, T. Effects of
information beedback and self-administered consequences on self-monitored
study behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1976, 23(4). 316-321.
70 Rickards, J. P. & August, G. J. Generative underlining strategies in
prose recall. J oumal of Educational Psychology. 1975, 67, 860-865.
Robinson, F. P. Effective Study. (4th ed), New York: Harper & Row,. 1970.
Robyak, J. E. Study skills versus non-study skills students: a
discriminant analysis. Journal of Educational Research. 1978, 71(3).
161-166.
Romancyzk, R. G., Kent, R. N., Diament, G., & O'Leary, R. D. Measuring
the reliability of observational data: a reactive process. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1973, 6, 175-184.
Rutner, I. T. & Bugle, C. An experimental procedure for the modification
of psychotic behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
1969, 22, 651-653.
Sagotsky, G., Patterson, C. J., & Lepper, M. R. Training children's
self-control: a field experiment in self-monitoring and goal-setting
in the classroom. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1978,
25, 242-253.
Simkins, L. The reliability of self-recorded behavior. Behavior Therapy.
1971,2,83-87.
Stadter, M. L. The effectiveness of self-control counseling in the
facilitation of academic behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts. 1974.
Stollack, G. E. Weight loss obtained under different experimental
procedures. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 1967, 4, 61-64
Stordahl, K. E. & Christensen, C. M. The effect of study techniques on
comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Research, 1956,
561-570.
71 Stuart, R. B. Behavioral control over eating. Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 1967, 3, 357-365.
Tichenor, J. L. Self-monitoring and self-reinforcement of studying
by college students. Psychological Reports. 1977, 42» 103-108.
Thoresen, L. & Mahoney, M. Behavioral Self-Control. New York: Holt,
Rhinehard & Winston, 1974.
Thoresen, C. E. & Wilbur, C. S. Some encouraging thoughts about self
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis. 1976, 2» 518-520.
Thomas, E. J., Abrams, K. S., & Johnson, J. Self-monitoring and reciprocal
inhibition in the modification of multiple tics of Gilles de la
Tourette's syndrome. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry. 1971, 2, 159-171.
Wade, T. C. Relative effects on performance and motivation of self
monitoring correct and incorrect responses. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 1974, 77, 245-248.
Weigel, R. G. & Weigel, V. M. The relationship of knowledge and usage
of study skill techniques to academic performance. Journal of
Educational Research. 1967, 61., 78-80.
Ziesat, H. A., Rosenthal, T. L., & White, G. M. Behavioral self-control
in treating procrastination of studying. Psychological Reports.
1978, 42, 59-69.
72 Appendix 1
73 Agreement
The following provisions of the contract were jointly agreed upon by
and on .student teacher
date
Objectives: 1) the desire to continue learning about behavior and experience 2) a critical attitude toward generalizations about human behavior 3) ability to get along without absolute answers to every problem 4) skill in reading and evaluating popular accounts of psychology 5) sensitivity to behavior and skill in observing and learning from it 6) ability to evaluate one's own writing, discussion, or ideas 7) understanding the elements of the experimental method in psychology 8) awareness of major psychological approaches to human behavior 9) ability to describe behavior in objective terms
Each of the objectives listed above will be evaluated by the student's performance on five mid-term exams and by the student's performance on the comprehensive final exam. The structure of the exams is discussed in the course syllabus.
Provisions of contract: the requirements of the course are detailed in the course syllabus and in the supplmentary instructions given to each student.
The due date for completion of this contract is ______date
I,______, agree with the contents of this contract and agree to fulfill the obligations written therein, to the best of my ability.
student
teacher
Evaluation:
74 Appendix 2
75 How-To-Study Program
The SQJR method of study-reading was developed by F. P. Robinson of
Ohio State University and has proved successful in assisting many college students to develop effective study skills by showing them how to divide their study-reading into the five parts symbolized by the formula:
Survey-Question-Read-Review-Recite. In this class, you will receive detailed instructions in the use of the SQ3R Reading Method and will be expected to actively use these skills when studying the text. If you do not wish to participate in the SQ3R study program, you are free to select another section of Psychology 201. The instructor will have a list of the Psych. 201 sections which are not participating in the SQ3R program.
The following instructions are very important. Please read these instructions carefully and if you have any questions, ask the instructor.
As part of this course, you will be required to participate in a how-to- study program. Results from studies examining these techniques have been generally found to increase test scores. The faculty wishes to evaluate the effect of these techniques in introductory psychology. It is important that you become actively involved in learning effective study habits. The teaching of a how-to-study program is analogous to coaching in athletics. In teaching a swimmer the crawlstroke, a coach presents it as a new method and not as a patchwork modification of the dog paddle.
Further, it takes more than one attempt to learn the new method, since continuing practice is necessary to develop smoothly functioning study habits. The emphasis in this study skills program is in developing effective skills, not just on finding out about them. This handout will outline
76 effective study methods and provide examples but it is necessary to get
practice by actually doing your homework with this method.
Steps in the SQ3R Method
1. Survey: Glance over the headings in the chapter to see the main points that will be discussed. Look at the pictures and graphs but don't try to understand them as yet. Read the final summary at the end of the chapter. This survey of the chapter should not take more than a minute and should help you to organize the ideas which the chapter will develop. This is a skill and a habit which will take practice. Some students are so in the habit of beginning to read a chapter without knowing the progression of ideas, literally not knowing what is on the next page, that it will take time to develop this habit. But it is well worth itl
2. Question: Now begin to start reading the chapter. But waitI Look at the first heading in the chapter. Turn it into a question. This will arouse your curiosity and thereby increase comprehension. It will bring to mind information you already know, helping you to understand the section more quickly. It will also make important points stand out. Changing a heading into a question should be a conscious effort to actively read the material.
3. Read: Read to answer the question. Read the paragraph or section under the heading with the purpose of searching out the answer to your question. This is an active search for the answer. You should have in your mind what you want to learn from that section as you read it rather than reading it passively line by line. Reading a textbook is not like reading fictions Even though you understand the ideas expressed in a section, you will not remember it unless you make an active effort to do so. You must know what you are looking for, then look for it, * then find itl
4. Recite: After you finished reading a section, look away from the book and try to recite the answer to your question. Use your own words. Do not try to memorize a sentence from the book which answers the question. Put the answer to your question in your own words and if possible, cite an example. Do not think you will remember the answer simply because you have a vague feeling of comprehension; putting it in your own words is much more effective. When you can
77 do this you know what is in the book; if you cannot, glance over the section and try again. An excellent way to do this reciting from memory is to jot down brief cue phrases in outline form on a sheet of paper. This note' taking should require little time or energy. The notes should be brief, very brief. It is at this stage that many students have difficulty with the SQ3R method. Some think they should use old habits of lengthy note taking, usually copying sentences right out of the book. You should practice taking the type of "working notes" advocated here. First, no notes should be written until the whole section is completely read. Second, the notes should be jotted down from memory and not from the book. Third. the notes should be down in your own words and should be brief, little more than a word or a phrase.
5« Review: When finishing the lesson, read through your section notes quickly, trying to get an overall view of the points and their relationship. Then check your memory by reciting the major subpoints under each heading by covering up the notes and trying to recall the main points. Then expose each major point and try to recall the subpoints under it.
The following passage is a paragraph taken from the chapter on learning in Bourne & Ekstrand: Psychology, Its Principles and Meanings. Before reading the paragraph, look at the heading, turn it into a question, then read the paragraph with the purpose of finding an answer to the question.
The token economy. Reward training, derived from the principles of operant conditioning, has been applied on a large scale to shape the behavior of groups of patients living together in mental hospitals. The goal is to teach the patients to behave more in accord with the definition of normal behavior. The hospital staff and patients devise a miniature society based on a token economy. Tokens (poker chips} are used, like money, as secondary rewards. The patients can earn tokens for certain behaviors and redeem them for special privileges.
Some of the questions which you probably thought of were: 1) What is a token economy? 2) What is a token? 3} What does an economy have to do with learning? If you asked any of these questions you found the answer simply by reading the paragraph. Now, without re-reading the paragraph,
78 can you remember the answer to your question? Say it to yourself in your
own words. There may be key words or phrases you want to write down, such
as: token economy-operant principles, mental hospitals, goal-normal
behavior, tokens-poker chips=money=rewards.
The Use of Underlining in Textbooks
More students underline in their textbooks than take notes because it is easier to do. But underlining can be effective only if used in the proper way. Several important points to keep it mind:
1. Underlining causes difficulty because it is so easy to do. Students underline important sentences as they read along. But if a different point later on turns out to be really the central idea of the section, it is underlined too, but it is not always possible to go back and erase the other lines. The result is that an underlined page is usually too heavily marked with important, repeated, and conflicting points. The conflicting underlinings confuse. One has to read all the underlinings and then puzzle out what the main points really are. A simple marking of the key phrase in a paragraph or section works far better than underlining complete sentences or underlining many sentences.
2. Another difficulty is that students read merely to mark important sentences rather than reading to comprehend and remember the major points stated. To encourage comprehension, the student should wait until the end of the headed section before going back to underline anything. This will insure that only the main idea will be marked.
3. While the delayed underlining is being done, the student could attempt to ’•outline'’ right in the book. Major points and subpoints could be numbered according to their importance. In reviewing later, the student could quickly tell what the major points are and how many subpoints there are.
Study Advice for Students
1• plan carefully
2. avoid having to hurry
3» work hard
4. persevere
5. be neat
79 t>. try to become interested
7. arrange to work in an orderly way
8. talk schoolwork problems over with the instructor
9. ask for further explanations of unclear assignments
10. correct errors on returned papers and tests
11. avoid interruptions when studying
12. avoid procrastination
13» review while reading an assignment
14. get enough rest, especially before a test
15. copy the diagrams and other illustrations that instructor puts on the board
16. keep the radio and stereo off while studying
17. avoid eating while studying
18. study alone rather than with others
19. do work regularly from day to day
A common mistake that nearly everyone makes is cramming before a test
rather than distributing study periods over a period of time. It has been
shown time and time again that studying 40-60 min. a day results in better
test performance as compared to little studying except just before the test.
It is to your advantage to study every day and get lots of rest the night
before the test.
It is important to learn these study techniques and use them in preparing
for tests. In several days you will be given a quiz over these techniques.
Also, an outline of each chapter is required to be handed in by a particular
date set by the instructor. The outline should not be more than one page.
Each week class time will be devoted to applying the SQ3H method to examples
taken from the text. If you agree to participate in the course, please sign
the statement acknowledging agreement on the following page and return it to
the instructor. GOOD LUCKl
80 Appendix 3
81 Psy. 201 SQ3R Exercise 1 The following passage is taken from Chapter 3 of the text. Before reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What is the question you chose?_____ .______. Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the question. Jot down key words or phrases:______• What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
• Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
REPRESENTATION OF VISUAL QUALITIES: COLOR PERCEPTION Look around you for a moment. One of the important functions of the sensory processes is to create experiences associated with the surfaces of the objects in your internal representation of the world. Of these different experiences, the most important is the experience of color. In daylight vision, the sensory' processes are able to create a wide variety of color experiences that better enable you to tell one object from another. Color is a descriptive name for a set of experiences; color is not a physical property of light. Today a lot is known about color vision and the mechanisms that create it. Certain individua do not have normal sensory mechanisms and do not, therefore, have normal color vision. Such people are (incorrectly) called color blind. The experiences we call color experiences are actually composed of three separate and independent experiences (psychological dimensions): hue, saturation, and brightness. Hue is the dimension of color experience to which we give different qualitative names, like red, violet,blue, yellow, purple, and green. The second dimension of color experience is called saturation, which is a description of how much hue there is in a particular color experience. For example, white light is a completely unsaturated color experience. Pink is a partially saturatec color experience, while red is a deeply saturated experience. The third dimension of color is. brightness, an experience that ranges from light to dark.
82 Psy. 201
SQ3R Exercise 2
The following passage is taken from Chapter 4 of the text. Before reading
the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What is the
question you chose?______;______?
Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the question.
Jot down key words or phrases:______.______,______
What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
.. •
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you have
trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
IDENTIFYING REINFCRCERS
In order to institute instrumental reward training, one must identify those objects or events that the learner values. Obviously, candy and other favorite foods can be used with children, but there are side effects that may be detrimental. What other reinforcers will be effective is sometimes hard to know. One general principle that may be helpful for the identification of reinforcers has been suggested by David Premack. The Premack Principle is that given two behaviors that differ in their likelihood of occurrence, the less likely behavior can be reinforced by using the more likely behavior as a reward. For example, given free choice, many children will spend more time watching TV than studying. Watching TV is a more probable behavior. The Premack principle states that the amount of studying can be increased by making TV time contingent on study behavior. Again, children are more likely to eat candy than to do odd jobs, given free choice. Thus candy can be used to encourage work. In a prison, playing softball is more probable than learning a new skill, given a free choice. To induce skill acquisition, the prison administration might use access to the softball field as a reinforcer. Thus from observation of an organism in a free-option environment, one can develop a list or hierarchy of preferred behaviors.
83 Psy. 201
SQ3R Exercise 3
The following passage is taken from Chapter 5 of the text. Before reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What is the question you chose?______?
How, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the question. Jot down key words or phrases:______
. •
What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
...... - ■ •
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
CONSOLIDATION THEORY
Corresponding to the first state of our memory scheme—storage—is the theory of memory consolidation. This theory postulates that every experience sets up some kind of trace. The trace may be thought of as a small electrical circuit formed in the brain, the circuit somehow coding the experience. According to the theory, this circuit must "consolidate" in order for the experience to be permanently stored. When the circuit is first set up, it is not very stable and is subject to easy disruption. The "neuroelectricity" (or whatever it is that underlies storage) must travel around the circuit many times (a process called perseveration) in order to consolidate the circuit, making it final and lasting. During the period between the end of learning and the completion of consolidation, the circuit is easily destroyed. Once the circuit is consolidated, however, it has been stored in long-term memory and is difficult to destroy. According to the consolidation theory, a major factor in forgetting is that memory is partly destroyed before it is consolidated. This theory focuses on the storage of information and maintains that memory failure can be a consequence of inadequate storage.
84 Psy. 201
SQ3R Exercise 4
The following passage is taken from Chapter 7 of the text. Before
reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. 'What is the question you chose?______■______?
Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the question. Jot down key words or phrases:______.______
What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
......
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
MOTIVATION AS A PULLING FORCE: INCENTIVES
The incentive theory of motivation stresses the attracting or pulling powei' that rewards appear to exert on behavior. The emphasis is on rewards and the conditions of reinforcement for behaving. Incentive theory rests on the assumption that the behaving organism knows what the consequences of its behavior will be. Thus, it focuses attention on the circumstances we are attempting to obtain (positive incentives) or those we are trying to avoid (negative incentives). Incentive theory is primarily concerned with the objects, events, and states of affairs that people find rewarding or punishing and are thus motivated to achieve or avoid. The emphasis is on the goals of behavior. Such an analysis of motivation leads researchers to study what it is that people are trying to acquire-food, drink, love, fame, prestige, money-and what it is they are trying to avoid-pain, anxiety, frustration, starvation, poverty, and the like. Incentives are not only objects to be obtained, such as money, but may include complicated states of affairs, such as receiving a promotion, winning an election, feeling satisfied with one's accomplishments, earning the respect of a colleague, and so on.
85 rsy. ¿u±
• SQ3R Exercise 5
The following passage is taken from Chapter 10 of the text. Before
reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What
is the question you choose?______;______?
Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the
question. Jot down key words or phrases:______
What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
__ •
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you
have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
DISSONANCE THEORY
Leon Festinger's consistency theory, known as cognitive dissonance theory, has been particularly influential. The theory of cognitive dissonance concerns the relationship between two or more cognitive or mental elements (ideas or beliefs). A consonant relationship exists when one of the elements implies the other in some psychological sense. A dissonant relationship exists when one cognition a person holds is inconsistent with another cognition he or she also holds. If a person holds cognitions A and B, and A implies not B. the cognitions are in a dissonant relationship. Some of the cognitive relationships said to be consonant include smoking and believing it is harmless to health, reading in a car magazine that the kind of car you just bought has been judged best by a panel of experts, and observing your chosen team winning by a landslide. On the other hand, if you smoke and know it is bad for your health, or if you bought the type of car that experts say is the most dangerous one cn the road, you probably have experienced dissonance. Because dissonance, like inconsistency, is in general uncomfortable, you probably have resolved or reduced the dissonance by now. Perhaps you have said to yourself, "I like smoking and I'll quit before it starts to affect my health" or "This car was a good buy and I'm a very careful driver."
86 Psy. 201
SQ3R Exercise 6
The following passage is taken from Chapter 11 of the text. Before
reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What
is the question you choose?______?
Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the
question. Jot down key words or phrases:______:______
-- ■ | - . . . . . ■■■■ ...... -
What is the answer to the question? (use, your own words)______
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you
have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
PSYCHOSIS
Individuals who can no longer differentiate between reality and fantasy, who sometimes experience hallucinations and delusions, or who occasionally lose conscious control of thoughts, feelings, and actions are considered psychotic. These behavioral characteristics often have dramatic effects on the individual's observable behavior as well as on his or her internal processes. Such persons may lose awareness of who and where they are, talk aloud to themselves, conduct nonsensical conversations with strangers, or withdraw and say nothing for days, months, or years. The normal workaday world is usually unprepared to understand or accept the bizarre behavior of the psychotic. Indeed, psychotic behavior is apt to elicit fear, repugnance, or ridicule, because its effect is so disrupting to society. Psychosis, unless organically caused and treatable, is most often a chronic illness that may affect the greater part of an individual's lifetime. Spontaneous recovery is rare, although a person may have psychotic episodes alternating with periods when he or she is able to function independently and maintain a somewhat normal life-style. The current emphasis in treating psychosis is to help the patient to do this, using long-term hospital care only as a last resort.
87 A oty • <.v '
• SQ3H Exercise 7
The following passage is taken from Chapter 12 of the text. Before reading the passage, look at the heading and turn it into a question. What is the question you choose?______:______?
Now, read the passage with the purpose of finding an answer to the question. Jot down key words or phrases:______
...... •
What is the answer to the question? (use your own words)______
Now, try to recite from memory the major points from the passage. If you have trouble, go back to the passage again until you can do this from memory.
EST
EST, which stands for Erhard Seminar Training, was founded in 1971 by Werner Erhard. Since then, it is estimated that over 85,000 people have gone through the 60-hour, two-weekend training period. EST borrows from many therapy orientations, including Scientology, psychoanalysis, Arica, transactional analysis, Dale Carnegie, Gestalt, and Eastern (such as Zen) and Western spiritualism. The training, which is given to large groups of several hundred people, combines lectures on EST philosophy with experiential exercises in a highly stressful setting that is designed to break down defenses and lead the trainee to accept the EST orientation. During training EST rules forbid talking, smoking, taking drugs, wearing a watch, using a tape recorder, or taking notes. Eating is scheduled once a day, and restroom breaks are rare (strong bladder control seems essential). Participants sit on hardback chairs for 15 hours at a time and are subjected to lectures on EST philosophy that sometimes go on for as long as 10 hours. The lectures are combined with attacks on participants, wno are called a variety of names because of their alleged stupidity and hang-ups. Lectures are followed by exercises involving relaxation, meditation, and Gestalt principles. One may be asked to experience boredom, anger, or anxiety, to beat one's chest like Tarzan or to growl like a gorilla, or to imagine oneself a rose or climbing a 25-foot high strawberry. A common exercise involves lying on the flooi' and imagining danger everywhere. After continuous stress and involvement, many (but not all) people experience strong emotional reactions. Fainting, vomiting, loss of bladder control, screaming, and other violent reactions during training testify to the intense effect of the experience. The mid-training seminar and the post-training seminar are filled with testimonials of profound changes that have taken place in people's lives.
88 Appendix 4
89 How-to-Study Quiz
1. What does "SQ3R" stand for?
2. Provide a brief description of each of the 5 components of the SQ3R Method.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
90 Appendix 5
91 Self-Regulation Program
The following instructions are very important. Please read these
instructions carefully and if you have any questions, ask the instructor.
You will be required to do several things in this course which you
probably have not done before. What you will be asked to do will not
affect your grade in this course but it is very important that you agree
to do what we ask, and continue doing it throughout the quarter. If,
for some reason, you do not wish to comply with the requirements of the
course, you are free to drop this course and select another section.
Very simply, we want you to pay attention, very careful attention,
to how much time you spend each day studying for psychology. We want
you to record the time every day and give it to a student in the class
who will collect the records. There will be detailed instructions about
how you will go about doing this but that is all we want you to do. The
records of your study time will not be seen by the instructor and will
not affect your grade at all. Results from studies examining these
techniques have generally been found to increase test scores. The faculty
wishes to evaluate the effect of these procedures in introductory
psychology.
You will be given 3x5 index cards, one card for each day, prior to
each test. You are asked to carry one card with you each day, either in your shirt pocket or your purse, and to mark down the number of minutes you spent studying for psychology immediately following the study session.
Study time should include those times reading the text, going over class notes, and talking to someone about psychological concepts or issues related to the course. Study time should not include the time spent in
92 class. Again, I remind you that the instructor will not see your study
time records and what you put on the card will not affect your grade. Each
day at the beginning of class, you will turn in yesterday'3 card to a
student in the class designated to collect the cards. The cards will be
placed in an envelope, the envelope sealed, and dropped into a box on the
second floor of the Psychology Building. On the card should be your social
security number, the date, and the time you spent studying psychology for that day. Saturday, Sunday, and holidays are to be included. Therefore, on
Monday you will hand in three cards, one for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
If you have not studied psychology at all for a particular day, simply record 0 min.
On the card you are asked to record the number of pages from the text read for that day. This is to be done immediately following the study session. It is possible that studying for psychology will be interrupted throughout the day. When this occurs, record the time and number of pages read after each study session. An example of one day's card is illustrated:
Do not wait until the end of the day and record what you think was the time you spent studying. It is important to be accurate. It may be convenient to keep the day's index card in the textbook as a bookmark. But don't forget to record both the time and number of pages read each day and to turn in the day's card on time. Your instructor will be kept informed of who doe3 and doesn't turn in the cards on time.
93 The second part of this procedure is also important. You will be
given 2 graphs and asked to record the total amount of time spent studying
each day on one graph and the total number of pages read each day on the
other. The two graphs are to be posted in a prominent place in your
room, somewhere where you can easily see them. One graph will be labeled
study time and the other will be labeled pages read. At the end of
each day, after studying is over, you are to calculate the total time
spent studying for that day and plot it on the graph. Connect the points
on the graph to the previous points. The same procedure is followed for
the total number of pages read for that day. You will continue recording
each day until the test. The day of the test is prominently marked on
the graph. On the day of the test you are asked to hand in the graphs
in the same manner as you turn in the note cards. Your social security
number should be on the top of each graph.
On each graph a line parallel to the horizontal axis intersects the
vertical axis at 60 minutes on the "study time" graph and at 10 pages on
the "pages read" graph. This line represents a standard of performance
or goal, against which you may judge your performance for that day. But
there is no penalty for not attaining the goal. To repeat, you are not
required to study any more or less than usual. Your study records will
not affect your grade. The instructor will not see these records. An
example of the two graphs for a hypothetical student is illustrated on the next page. Notice that this student studied 30 minutes on the first day and did not study at all on days 2 and 3.
94 TEST 180
minutes
pages read
Notice also that this student studied approximately 65 minutes on the day of the test. This probably means that this student woke up earlier than usual and studied 65 minutes before going to class and taking the test. On the day of the test, you will be given a new set of graphs and index cards and asked to continue recording study time and the number of pages read until the next test. This program will continue throughout the quarter and end on the day of the final exam.
To summarize:
•». record study time and the number of pages read on index cards each day immediately following study session
95 2. at the end of the day, you will calculate the total amount of time and the total nunber of pages read and plot the amounts on the two graphs, connecting the points to the previous days values
3. you will turn in the previous days' card-to the designated student prior to class each day
4. on test day, you will turn in the card for the previous day and the two graphs
5. on test day, you -will be given a new set of index cards and two more graphs
6. this procedure will continue for every test
In a few days you will be given a quiz over the self-regulation methods discussed above. It is important that you obey all instructions if you agree to participate. If you agree to participate in this course and agree to obey all instructions, please sign the statement acknowledging agreement on the following page and return it to the instructor.
96 Appendix 6
97 Self-Regulation Quiz
1. What do you put on the index cards?
2. When do you put the informatiai on the index cards?
3. What do you put on the two graphs?
4. When do you put the information on the graphs?
5« What do you turn in to the instructor on the day of the test? What do you get in return?
6. What is the daily goal which you should try to attain?
98 Appendix 7
99 Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental
Groups on ACT Composite and Knowledge of « Psychology Pretest
Experimental ACT Composite Psychology Pretest Group Mean S.D. Mean S.D
Self-Regulation 19.07 4.69 15.13 3.27
Study Skills 19.11 5.64 17.05 3.65
Self-Reg. + Study Skills 19.18 4.20 15.53 4.29
Outline-Control 20.51 4.13 16.46 3.66
No Outline-Control 19.47 4.31 16.75 3.77
* Total possible points are 35.
100 Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental
Groups on SSHA Subscales
SSHA Self Study- Self-Reg.+ Outline • Subscales Regulation Skills S. Skills Control (n=56) (n=52) (n=68) (n=64)
Delay Mean 21.77 21.28 20.57 21.33 Avoidance S.D. 8.32 8.53 9.11 8.75
Work Mean 22.91 24.70 24.17 25.80 Methods S.D. 8.35 9.06 8.67 9.04
Teacher Mean 25.09 28.65 27.36 29.76 Approval S.D. 9.16 7.75 8.51 5.88
Educational Mean 25.48 26.22 26.75 27.84 Acceptance S.D. 7.97 7.05 8.29 7.07
Note. Scores on the SSHA Subscales were unavailable for No-outline control group 101 SSHA------Form C
Percentile Norms for College Freshmen
(Based Upon 3054 Cases from Nine Different Colleges)
Delay Work Teacher Educational Percentile Avoidance Methods Approval Acceptance
99 46-50 45-50 47-50 47-50 97 44-45 42-44 46 45-46 95 41-43 40-41 44-45 43-44 90 38-40 37-39 42-43 41-42 85 36-37 35-36 41 40 80 34-35 33-34 40 38-39 75 32-33 32 39 37 70 31 30-31' 38 36 65 29-30 29 36-37 35 60 28 28 35 34 55 26-27 26-27 34 33 50 25 25 33 32 45 23-24 24 32 31 40 22 22-23 31 30 35 21 21 30 28-29 30 19-20 20 29 27 25 17-18 18-19 27-28 25-26 20 15-16 16-17 25-26 24 15 13-14 14-15 23-24 22-23 10 10-12 12-13 20-22 19-21 5 7-9 9-11 17-19 15-18 3 6 7-8 13-16 13-14 1 0-5 0-6 0-12 0-12
25.0 25.1 32.7 31.4 10.0 9.2 8.0 8.3
Note. Percentile Norms obtained from SSHA Manual, The Psychological Corporation.
102 Appendix 8
103 Stepwise Regression of ACT Composite, Experimental
Treatment, and the Interaction on Total
Points Obtained on Midterm Tests
Predictor Multiple Simple Variable R R2 r B Beta
ACT Composite .346 .120 .346 .383 .152
Study skills .371 .138 -.118 -32.322 -.758
Self-régula tion + study skills .384 .148 -.056 -29.408 -.678
Self-regulation .404 .163 -.063 -30.314 -.707
Outline-control .427 .182 -.012 -7.889 -.185
ACT x Outline-, control .444 .197 .027 .002 .001
ACT x Self-reg. .452 .205 .034 1.143 .515
ACT x Study skills .461 .213 -.045 1.O61 .501
ACT x Self-reg. + Study skills .477 .228 .013 1.035 .475
(Constant) 91.344
Note. Sample size was 356.
104 Appendix 9
105 Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Groups on
the Five Midterm Tests and the Final Exam
Experimental Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Final Group Test 1 Test 2 Test’ 3 Test 4 Test 5 Exam
Self- Mean 18.57 18.30 16.96 17.59 19.84 20.81 Regulation S.D. 4.03 3.70 4.73 4.97 4.23 5.10 (n=62)
Study Mean 18.30 17.87 16.22 16.45 18.03 20.87 Skills S.D. 4.23 3.53 4.15 4.40 4.33 4.08 (n=73)
Self-Reg. + Mean 18.10 17.41 17.95 17.70 19.01 21.58 S. Skills S.D. 4.30 3.65 4.57 4.40 3.77 4.53 (n=68)
Outline- Mean 18.97 17.41 17.95 17.70 19.01 21.58 Control S.D. 4.05 4.00 4.20 3.55 3.93 4.47 (n=75)
No Outline- Mean 20.19 20.19 19.60 19.28 20.71 23.71 Control S.D. 3.67 3.52 3.55 3.33 3.77 3.81 (n=78)
Note. Total Points obtainable on each midterm test was 25. Total Points obtainable on the final exam was 30.
106 r- ©
Y' = 9.63 + „44 (ACT) Self-Regulation
Y’=12.05 + .33(ACT) Study Skills
Y'=13.67 4- .23(ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y'=18.12 + .07(ACT) Outline-Control
Midterm ■ Test 1 30 T
20
10
+------1------( -+ —+ -4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite OO O
------Y’=10.23 + .39(ACT) Self-Regulation Y’ = ------Y'=13.13 + .21 (ACT) Study Skills
Y’=12.95 + .26 (ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
------Y'=15.99 + .06 (ACT) Outline-Control
Midterm .Test 2
30
-+■ ■+- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite O. o
------Y*'=1O.93 + .33 (ACT) Self-Regulation
------Y'= 9.42 + .36 (ACT) Study Skills
------Y'=12.90 + ,24(ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
------Y'=14.79 + ,16(ACT) Outline-Control
Midterm Test 3 30
20
10
<------1------1------1------h 4------1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite O
Y’ =14.73 + .13(ACT) Self-Regulation
Y'=12.74 + .21 (ACT) Study Skills
Y'=12.95 + .21(ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y’=17.14 + .02(ACT) Outline-Control
Midterm Test 4
30
20
10
H------1------—1------1------j. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite Y* =15.50 + .23 (ACT) Self-Regulation
Y’=11.69 + .33(ACT) Study Skills
Y’ = 9.47 + .48 (ACT) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y’ =17.41 + .03 (ACT) Outline-Control
Midterm Test 5
30
20
10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
ACT Composite Appendix 10
112 Stepwise Regression of ACT Composite, Experimental
Treatment, and the Interaction on
Final Exam Scores
Predictor Multiple Simple Variable R R2 r B Beta
ACT Composite .310 .096 .310 .170 .190
Self-reg. + Study skills .326 .106 -.090 -15.105 -.983
Study skills .337 .114 -.046 -6.490 -.429
Self-regulation .359 .129 -.072 -7.776 -.512
Outline-control .366 .134 .027 1.825 .121
ACT x Self-reg. + Study skills .434 .189 .020 .633 .820
ACT x Outline- control .462 .213 .018 -.189 -.248
ACT x Self-reg. .469 .220 .010 .279 .354
ACT x Study skills .473 .224 .005 .202 .269
(Constant) 23.723
Note. Sample size was 356.
113 Appendix 11
1U t
The regression of final exam scores on the Teacher Approval subscale
of the SSHA for all conditions.
115 ------Y’='!5.85 + .0’. (TA) Self-Regulation
------Y’=i6.6l + .09(TA) Study Skills
------Y’= 4.25 + .15(TA) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
------Y'=27.42 - .15(TA) Outline-Control
Final Exam Scores
30
20
10
4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Teao.-er Approval The regression of final exam scores on the Educational Acceptance subscale of the SSHA for all conditions.
117 Y'=i$.35 -■ .03(EA) Self-Regula tion
Y’=i6.6l -■ .03(EA) Study Skills
Y'= 4.25 -• .03(EA) Self-Regulation + Study Skills
Y’=27.42 -■ .13(EA) Outline-Control
Final Exam Scores 30 T
20
10
"f -+ -H H------1------j- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Educational Acceptance Appendix 12
119 Zero-Order Correlations of Predictor Variables
with Midterm Test Points and Final Exam Score
Predictor Midterm Variable Test Points Final Exam
ACT Composite .394 .347
Delay Avoidance .280 .251
Work Methods .221 .238
Teacher Approval .149 .177
Educational Acceptance .228 .212
Note. Sample size was 280.
120 Stepwise Regression of ACT Composite, SSHA
Subscales, Experimental Treatment.,
and the Interaction on
Midterm Test Points
* Predictor Multiple Simple Variable R R2 r B Beta
ACT Composite .394 .155 .394 .458 .177
Delay Avoidance .438 .191 .280 .878 .549
Teacher Approval .447 .200 .149 -.491 -.340
Work Methods .450 .202 .220 -.114 -.076
Educational Acceptance .452 .204 .228 -.113 -.074
Study skills .460 .211 -.064 -27.013 -.690
Self-regulation + Study skills .462 .214 .006 -21.942 -.552
Self-regula ti on .465 .217 -.001 -24.473 -.622
Work Methods x Self-regulation .501 .251 .052 -.870 -.501
Teacher Approval x Study skills .515 .266 .021 .797 .583
Delay Avoidance x Study skills .521 .272 .011 -.721 -.413
(Constant) 84.081
Note. Sample size was 280. * An estimation of the degree of error involved in the multiple correlation is provided on page 114. 121 Stepwise Regression of ACT Composite, SSHA
Subscales, Experimental Treatment.,
and the Interaction on
Final Exam Scores
Predictor Multiple Simple Variable R R2 r B Beta
Act Composite .347 .120 .347 -.053 -.059
Delay Avoidance .387 .150 .251 .096 .174
Educational Acceptance .388 .151 .212 -.134 -.254
Self-regulation + Study skills .396 .157 -.055 -23.166 -1.692
Study skills .400 .159 -.000 -10.813 -.802
Self-regulation .405 .164 -.032 -11.567 -.854
Teacher Approval .405 . .164 .177 -.151 -.304
Work Methods .493 .243 .238 .187 .362
Teacher Approval x Self-reg. + Study skills .533 .284 .021 .299 .626
Teacher Approval x Study skills .539 .290 .070 .240 .510
Work Methods x Self-regulation .545 .297 .023 .159 .292
Work Methods x Self-regulation + Study skills .553 .306 .046 -.269 -.502
(Constant) 27.421
Note. Sample size was 280.
An estimation of the degree of error involved in the multiple correlation is provided on page 114. 122 The beta weights in a regression analysis are designed to yield the
highest possible correlation between the predictor variables and the
criterion variables. In the calculation of the multiple correlation, the
zero-order correlations are treated as if they were error free. Because of sample error, the multiple correlation (R) will be overestimated.
Thus, generalizing the results to a future sample will contain some amount of error. To avoid this problem, it is possible to estimate the amount of error involved in the multiple correlation by applying the derived beta weights to a new sample and noting the amount of shrinkage involved (cross validation). The new multiple correlation is considered to be a more realistic estimation of the population multiple R. Although it was not possible to get an independent sample to cross-validate the multiple regression equations, estimates of the amount of shrinkage were calculated from a formula provided by Kerlinger & Pedhazur (1973). The estimated population multiple R2 for predicting scores on the midterm tests with ACT and the SSHA was .44 (shrinkage of .01) and with ACT alone was .38 (shrinkage of .01). Thus, the SSHA would account for an additional six percent of the variance in test scores over that accounted for by ACT alone. These figures correspond to those obtained by Stutts (Note 1) who reported the SSHA would account for an additional five percent of the variance in cumulative grade point average over that accounted for by ACT alone. Stutts further reported that responses on a personality inventory
(California Psychological Inventory) accounted for only one percent of the variance in cumulative grade point average over that accounted for by ACT alone
123 Intercorrel&tion Matrix of the Five Midterm Tests, the Final Exam,
the ACT Composite, and the SSHA Subscales
Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Final Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Exam ACT DA WM TA
Midterm Test 1 1.00 Midterm Test 2 .58 1.00 Midterm Test 3 .53 .48 1.00 Midterm Test 4 .39 .49 .46 1.00 Midterm Test 5 .44 .42 .49 .52 1.00 Final Exam .41 .38 .46 .42 .58 1.00 ACT Composite .33 .33 .35 .16 .32 .35 1.00 Delay Avoidance .21 .25 .26 .16 .18 .25 .24 1.00 Work Methods .21 .19 .22 .08 .13 .24 .35 .79 1.00 Teacher Approval .16 .14 .17 .05 .05 .18 .23 .69 .77 1.00 Educational Accept . .21 .19 .24 .11 .13 .21 .26 .82 .83 .86
Note. Sample size is 280. Appendix 13
125 PSYCHOLOGY 201 COURSE EVALUATION (LECTURE)
The following questionnaire is a primary source of information about your reactions to this course. Changes in the course structure will be based on your answers, therefore it is very important that the following information be accurate. Your frank and honest cooperation ' - helping to dci;ign a better course will be greatly appreciated. Please use the attached et to record your responses to the following questions (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5). .ase write the name of the instructor at the top of the IBM answer sheet. Also, please use only a number 2 pencil to mark your responses.
1. Sex: a. male; b. female
2. Class standing: a. freshman; b. sophomore; c. junior; d. senior; e. other
I. How would you rate the text?
3. Amount of reading too little too much 12 3 4 5
4. Readability too easy too difficult 1 2 3 4 5
5. Content general specific 1 2 3 4 5
6. Interest level boring stimulating 1 2 3 4 5
II. How would you rate the test for this course?
7. Amount too few too many 1 2 3 4 5
8. Length too short too many 1 2 3 4 5
9. Difficulty too easy too difficult 1 2 3 4 5
III. Compare this course with others you have taken or are taking at Bowling Green in the following ways: 10. Interest level least interesting most interesting 1 2 3 4 5
11. Difficulty easiest most difficult 1 2 3 4 5
12. Amount of material learned very low very high 1 2 3 4 5
13. Please rate the overall quality of this course. very low quality very high quality 1 2 3 4 5
14. How many hours did you spend studying for this course per week?
a. 0-2; b. 3-4; c. 5-6; d. 7-8; e. 9 or more
/ad mici u ytuuc v*v*
a. A; b. B; c. C; d. D; e. F
IV. How would you rate the desirability of the following?
16. Films not at all highly 1 2 3 4 5
17. Lectures not at all highly 1 2 3 4 5
18. Discussion periods not at all highly 1 2 3 4 5
19. Demonstrations not at all highly 1 2 3 4 5
20. For the number of hours of credit, how much work is required?
too 2 ittle too much 1 2 3 4 5
21. Does cheating occur in this course?
none an extreme amount 12 3 4 5
22. If you had to do the same amount of reading but had an option of taking fewer quizzes, each over a larger unit, or more quizzes over smaller units, which would you prefer? a. larger units and fewer quizzes; b. smaller units and more quizzes
V. How would you evaluate the study guide for this course?
23. Do you make use of the Students study Guide?
not at all actively 1 2 3 4 5
24. The study guide was:
vague specific and clear 1 2 3 4 5
25. The study guide was: too Shor t. too long 1. 2 3 4 5
26. The study guide was: irrelevant helpful 1 2 3 4 5
27. Time of class meeting: a. 8:30 a.m.; b. 9:30i a.m.; c. other 28. The time of the course meeting is: very desirable very undesirable 1 2 3 4 5
Write any other general comment oiv the-back of- the IBM answer sheet.
Ml Appendix 14
128 Evaluation for Self-Regulation Sections
A. Do you think that keeping a record of how much time you spent studying every day helped you on the tests? 1) I think it helped a great deal; 2) I think it helped a little; 3) I do not think it made a difference one way or the other; 4) I think it hurt my’ performance on the tests.
Mean response: 2.21
B. What do you think was more helpful to you, keeping a record of the time spent studying, or the number of pages read in the text? 1) Keeping records of both time and pages read was very helpful; 2) Keeping records of time was more important than keeping records of pages read; 3) Keeping records of pages read was more important than keeping records of time; 4) Keeping records of both time and pages read was not helpful to me.
Mean response: 2.59
C. Do you think you will use the technique of recording time you spend studying for your classes for the purpose of improving your grades? 1) Very definitely; 2) Probably; 3) Occasionally; 4) Probably not; 5) Definitely not.
Mean response: 3«74
D. How accurate were the records you kept of study time during the quarter? 1) Very accurate all the time; 2) Very accurate most of the time; 3) Somewhat accurate most of the time; 4) Not very accurate: most of the time I just guessed; 5) Not accurate at all: I made up figures to put on the cards just to turn something in.
Mean response: 2.11
E. Did you fill in the graphs each day? 1) Always; 2) Usually; 3) Sometime 4) Usually not; 5) Never.
Mean Response: 2.30
F. Are there any comments you wish to add to the evaluation of the technique of recording your study time or pages read?
129 Evaluation for Study Skills Sections
A. Do you think that doing your homework and reading the text using the SQ3R Study Method helped you on the tests? 1) I think it helped a great deal; 2) I think it helped a little; 2) I do not think it made a difference one way or the other; 4) I think it hurt my'performance on the tests.
Mean response: 2.50
B. Do you think the SQ3R Study Method helped you understand the material in this course? 1) Very definitely; 2) Probably; 3) Occasionally; 4) Probably not; 5) Definitely not.
Mean response: 3.24
C. Do you think you will use the SQ3H Study Method for your other classes for the purpose of improving your grades? 1) Very definitely; 2) Probably; 3) Occasionally; 4) Probably not; 5) Definitely not.
Mean response: 3»53
D. Did you actually use the SQ3R Study Method in reading the text and studying for the tests? 1) Always; 2) Usually; 3) Sometimes; 4) Usually not; 5) Never.
Mean response: 2.95
E. Are there any comments you wish to add about using the SQ3R Study Method?
130 Appendix 15
131 Means and Standard Deviations for the Self-Regulation Group
of Reported Study Time, Reported Pages Read, £ and the Percentage of Study Time
Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
Study Mean 605.80 610.23 569.90 548.57 521.26 Time S.D. 254.00 326.47 304.01 383.12 330.39
Pages Mean 108.86 91.21 98.60 97.21 86.49 Read S.D. 54.03 61.68 55.69 72.85 58.02
% Study Mean 66.13 53.39 46.07 43.99 43.01 Time S.D. 19.62 19.82 20.76 26.01 23.50
Note. Sample size is 70.
Percentage of study time is computed from the proportion of days studying was reported to have occurred out of the total number of days prior to the test. *# Study time is expressed in minutes.
132 Means and Standard Deviations for the Self-Regulation and
Study Skills Group of Reported Study Time,
Reported Pages Read, and the * Percentage of Study Time
Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Midterm Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
Study Mean 558.96 516.76 498.96 523.04 509.13 Time S.D. 234.64 248.09 264.95 246.78 302.61
Pages Mean 100.53 85.32 88.32 94.54 81.81 Read S.D. 46.07 42.92 54.43 44.26 47.56
% Study Mean 68.62 52.71 46.07 46.85 43.93 Time S.D. 18.93 19.18 21.89 19.14 19.74
Note. Sample size is 68. « Percentage of study time is computed from the proportion of days studying was reported to have occurred out of the total number o Reported Study Time, Reported Pages Read, and the Percentage of Study Time for the Self-Regulation Group Midterm Tests 1 2 3 4 Midterm Test 1 1.00 Midterm Test 2 .65 1.00 Midterm Test 3 .55 .47 1.00 Midterm Test 4 .29 .36 .52 1.00 Midterm Test 5 .29 .30 .43 .53 Study Time-Test 1 .26 Study Time-Test 2 .21 Study Time-Test 3 .22 Study Time-Test 4 .21 Study Time-Test 5 Pages Read-Test 1 .22 Pages Read-Test 2 .15 Pages Read-Test 3 .26 Pages Read-Test 4 .24 Pages Read-Test 5 % Study Time-Test 1 .19 % Study Time-Test 2 .02 % Study Time-Test 3 .14 % Study Time-Test 4 .13 % Study Time-Test 5 Note. Sample size is 70. 134 Intercorrelation Matrix of the Five Midterm Tests, Reported Study Time, Reported Pages Read, and the Percentage of Study Time for the Self- Regulation and Study Skills Group Midterm Tests 1 2 3 4 5 Midterm Test 1 1.00 Midterm Test 2 .58 1.00 Midterm Test 3 .57 .47 1.00 Midterm Test 4 .51 .58 .58 '1.00 Midterm Test 5 .47 .31 .56 .51 1.00 Study Time-Test 1 .35 Study Time-Test 2 .08 Study Time-Test 3 .40 Study Time-Test 4 .22 Study Time-Test 5 .37 Pages Read-Test 1 .28 Pages Read-Test 2 .08 Pages Read-Test 3 .39 Pages Read-Test 4 .14 Pages Read-Test 5 .32 % Study Time-Test 1 .32 % Study Time-Test 2 .10 % Study Time-Test 3 .35 % Study Time-Test 4 .28 % Study Time-Test 5 .38 Note. Sample size is 68. 135