Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker, York College of Pennsylvania, rshedlos@ycp.edu

Background

As an academic advisor for new college students, I often see them struggle to understand the demands of high school versus college, particularly in terms of self-regulation. Professors generally expect their students to complete work outside of class, including assigned and self-initiated activities (e.g., reviewing material). Given students’ experience with homework during their K-12 experience, professors and advisors may be tempted to presume college students are well practiced at completing such work and already know how to regulate related behaviors. Although research suggests that self-monitoring and knowledge of how students learn improves as they age (Brown & Smiley, 1977; Pressley, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984), college students can still struggle with this metacognitive skill (Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). The impaired metacognition may be in part due to lack of transition training.

In high school, it was likely easier for students to determine what work they had to do because someone told them what to do. College presents a different environment; perhaps for the first time, students become largely—if not solely—responsible for regulating their studying. Although students may still have assigned homework, they also have to decide what course materials to read, what to study and how, and what and when to review. This leap from being highly guided by others to being responsible for regulating their own studying can present a challenge to college students, particularly when no intermediate steps help scaffold students’ learning of self-regulation and metacognitive skills. To assist students in understanding their own study habits, I sought out to examine what role weekly study reports could play in students’ overall academic performance.

Method

I recruited undergraduate students enrolled in a mid-sized private four-year college to participate in a semester-long study on study habits. Interested students could complete up to 12 weekly study reports (adapted from Bembenutty & White; 2013; see Appendix). Through the online report, students recorded what assigned and self-initiated work they completed during the past week. Students also completed a survey at the beginning and end of the semester, measuring their feelings of motivation related to their courses (items adapted from intrinsic motivation inventory, including the choice, tension, effort, enjoyment, and value subscales; Ryan, 1982) and other academic factors (e.g., high school GPA, cumulative college GPA, credits enrolled during the current semester). In the final survey, students assessed their experience using the study reports. Students who completed both surveys and submitted at least eight weekly reports were entered into a raffle to win a gift card to the college bookstore.

Outcomes/Lessons Learned

Of the 77 students I observed during the semester, most (n = 64, 83%) submitted at least one of the 12; 36 students (47%) completed at least eight reports and 10 students (13%) submitted all 12 reports. Cumulative GPA prior to that semester was unrelated to the number of reports submitted, r(72) = 0.15, p = .21, as was academic standing based on earned credits, r(77) = -.12, p = .29. Motivation measures were unrelated to the number of reports submitted, except for choice: Students who felt they had more choice in selecting their classes also submitted more reports, r(75) = .26, p = .02.

To examine the relation to academic performance that semester, I conducted a multiple regression analysis, including previous cumulative GPA (i.e., prior to the start of the study), number of credits earned (i.e., academic standing), perceived choice in taking their courses, and number of study reports completed as potential predictors. Only two of the variables predicted semester GPA: previous cumulative GPA (B = 0.73, t = 9.54, p < .001) and number of reports submitted (B = 0.19, t = 2.33, p = .02). As previous academic success was accounted and did not predict how many study reports students completed, it seems unlikely that the positive relation between number of reports completed and semester GPA could merely be attributed to a “good student” effect, which might suggest that good students were more inclined to complete the reports, as well as engage in behaviors that improved their academic performance. Finally, none of the measures of motivation predicted whether students completed the weekly reports.

Among the 41 students who completed the final survey, most students indicated that the reports were helpful (n = 34, 83%) and felt they gained useful insight by completing the reports (n = 30, 73%). Among the open-ended remarks, students noted that the reports helped them realize how much work they were (or were not) doing and how much time tasks/classes required. Several students remarked that they had learned about their own study habits, including common distractors they struggled with, inadequate strategies they used, and their own failures in time management. In light of students’ remarks, the reports appeared to provide an opportunity to regularly and explicitly think about their own study habits. In doing so, students may develop improved metacognition related to their own learning.

If employed more intentionally as a learning tool, instructors and advisors could use the reports to go beyond helping students develop a heightened awareness of their study behaviors. Advisors could have new students or students who are struggling academically maintain a journal of their studying during a set period of time and then provide individualized suggestions to the student in an informal one-on-one conversation. Expecting students to have an actual record means that the advisor and student are not relying on autobiographical introspection of a student’s behaviors to understand current problems or develop future studying plans. In a class, particularly for courses that address effective learning strategies as a student learning outcome (e.g., first-year seminar courses, major orientation courses), instructors could create more structured engagement with the tool by not only having students record behaviors but also identify patterns of behavior over time and make evidence-based plans for future studying behaviors. Such a strategy offers an opportunity to incentivize completing the reports (e.g., course credit) and could be a valuable stepping stone for students as they transition from highly-guided learner to self-directed learner. 

References

Bembenutty, H., & White, M. C. (2013). Academic performance and satisfaction with homework completion among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 83-88. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.013

Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structure units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8. doi: 10.2307/1128873

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19-33. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_3

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 270-288. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90181-6

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450