- Email: [email protected]
Proficiency at academic studying
CONTEMPORARY
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Proficiency
13, 265-215 (1988)
at Academic
Studying
JOHN W. THOMAS Far
West Laboratory
for
Educational
Research
and Development
This article presents a hypothetical model, based largely on extant laboratory research, of (a) attributes of proficiency at academic studying, and (b) course features that should act to promote and support students’ engagement in sustained self-directed learning. This ideal model is contrasted with normative study behavior as indexed by results from a recent survey of adolescents’ study activities. Principles regarding the way in which course demands and supports act to inhibit study proficiency in academic settings are discussed. o 1988 Academic PXSS, 1~.
It is only recently that psychologists and educators have come to realize that academic studying in general, and study proficiency in particular, cannot be adequately described on the basis of existing research and theory. Although research on prose learning, reading comprehension, and memory have provided information on methods that facilitate learning from text and on ways that expert studiers differ from novices, most of the available research involves supervised, well-defined tasks. Academic studying, on the other hand, can be characterized as an isolated and individual activity that takes place in a relatively ill-defined environment. In most instances, students are given neither directions for, nor instruction in, what or how to study. As a consequence, studying is unique in its requirement for self-initiated, self-defined, and self-regulated effort (Thomas & Rohwer, 1987). Recent attempts to capture the unique aspects of studying in academic settings (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Entwistle, 1985; Rohwer & Thomas, 1987) feature the separate and interacting roles played by course features (e.g., the criterion, text characteristics) and student characteristics (styles, abilities, volitional characteristics). This article is an attempt to extend these models by (a) defining attributes of proficiency at academic studying, (b) defining course characteristics that might affect the promotion and maintenance of such proficiency, and (c) presenting some examples of how the real world of academic studying departs from this ideal picture. Our speculations about proficiency at academic studying derives from the beginning stages of an investigation we are currently conducting of students’ study activities across the period Reprint requests may be sent to J.W.T. at the Autonomous Learning Project, Far West Laboratory, 1855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 17984-02). 265 0361-476X/88 $3.00 Copyright AU rights
0 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
266
JOHN W. THOMAS
of adolescence (Thomas & Rohwer, 1987). We were interested in identifying the universe of such activities engaged in by students in the courses they take, as well as the extent to which these activities are influenced by particular features of these courses. In the process of building our instruments and sharpening our hypotheses, we developed some models of different aspects of studying. First, we developed a model of the different component activities of studying, and what proficiency at these components might consist of-what students might have to know, be good at, or be willing to do in order to cope with the demands of courses and of study tasks. Second, we developed a model of significant course featurescourse requirements and conditions that might increase the relative demand on students’ study activities or those that might support or compensate for engagement in these activities. Table 1 presents a current version of these models. The listings displayed in the two columns in Table 1 are ideal descriptions, based in part TABLE IDEAL
STUDENT
AND COURSE
1
CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED ACADEMIC STUDYING
Student attributes A. Focus on the Criterion 1. Cue-seeking 2. Strategy selection 3. Self-assessment B. Spontaneous Engagement in Knowledge-Acquisition Activities 1. Selection 2. Comprehension-enhancement 3. “Deep Processing” 4. Cognitive monitoring C. Spontaneous Engagement in Activities that Transform Knowledge for some Purpose 1. Elaboration 2. Integration 3. Application D. Spontaneous Engagement in Self-Management Activities as Needed I. Time management 2. Effort management E. Strong Sense of Personal Efficacy 1. Confidence 2. Control 3. Commitment to improvement
WITH
PROFICIENCY
AT
Course characteristics A. Explicit Statement of the Criterion, Expectations, and Standards B. Presence of Appropriate Cognitive Challenge I. Difficulty, volume, pace, abstractness of material 2. Provision of comprehension aids, e.g., interesting presentation, checks on comprehension C. Demands and Supports for the Transformation or Integration of Course Content 1. Importance of integration 2. Criterion demands for integration 3. Noncongruence between course material and criterion demands D. Latititude for Self-Direction 1. Opportunity for practice 2. Opportunity for feedback 3. Encouragement E. Supportive Climate 1. Absence of stress factors, e.g., competitive grading 2. Supports for efficacy
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
267
on conjecture and in part on the results of extant laboratory research. Accordingly, it remained to be seen whether these models would be useful for describing the way things ought to be, not to mention the reality of day-to-day academic studying as we observed it. CHARACTERISTICS
OF PROFICIENT
STUDENTS
Although a profile of the proficient student must be pieced together from the results of several investigations, there seems to be considerable agreement among investigators about what constitutes effective studying practices. The left-hand column of Table 1 lists some hypothetical attributes of the proficient student. These attributes derive, for the most part, from the results of laboratory investigations in which differences in outcomes on some experimental task are linked to differences in some study behavior observable during learning. In light of the fact that many of the findings from these sources are specific to particular age ranges, subject matters, or task conditions, this list should be regarded as a working hypothesis. Proficient studiers have been characterized as goal oriented. Their study activities are guided by an understanding of what they ought to be able to do when their studying is completed. Stated in another way, proficient studiers maintain a focus on what is expected of them in a particular situation. This awareness of the criterion translates into some unique activities. Proficient learners are conscious of and will seek out cues concerning what is most important in a course. They are able to make judgments about which information is more important than other information, based on criterion knowledge. Moreover, proficient studiers are able to use information about the criterion to select processing strategies and review strategies that are most appropriate for this criterion performance. Specific activities that ought to characterize the proficient studier in an academic situation include asking questions to clarify the purpose of an assignment, estimating what portion of lecture content might be covered on an upcoming test, and evaluating readiness by testing oneself against likely examination questions. Proficient studiers know how to acquire knowledge efficiently. Knowledge acquisition activities include selecting important from less important information, reading for meaning, altering reading rate to accommodate difficult material, solving comprehension problems as they occur, and monitoring the process and adequacy of the end product. Proficient studiers engage in these learning-enhancing activities in a self-initiated, strategic, and self-regulated fashion. A third class of activities that can be used to characterize proficient studiers has to do with the way in which they interpret and review material to be learned. Proficient studiers have a repertoire of methods that
268
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
they use to make learning material more memorable and to make relationships between that material and other sources more clear. (See Levin, 1988). Whereas some learners are satisfied with the results of simply reading and/or rereading new material, the proficient learner acts to encode new information in such a way as to make it easily retrievable on a subsequent occasion, to transform and personalize the material in order to make its implications and deep-level meanings more apparent, and, in the case of concepts and principles, to test the adequacy of his or her knowledge by applying the newly learned information to some kind of problem or criterion task. For example, we observed an eighth-grade class that was studying the Civil War. Following a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the North versus the South, a student asked her teacher why the North Vietnamese were so successful in the war in Vietnam when they, like the unsuccessful South, had smaller numbers and fewer armaments than their enemy. This, presumably, is an example of a student applying a newly learned principle to stored knowledge in a way that should enhance both comprehension and memory. An additional class of activities concerns the management of time and effort devoted to learning. Studying is usually an arduous, isolated activity. It often takes place in a distraction-filled environment, one that is full of alternative pursuits. Proficient learners are those who know the “temptations that flesh is heir to” and have a ready repertoire of techniques for maintaining concentration, getting themselves started on learning tasks, and avoiding procrastination and perseveration. In short, proficient learners have the means for “keeping on track,” if and when they need such means. Proticient learners are ones who have a good sense of time as well. They know how much time a study task will take and how much time they will need to complete that task given other considerations. They are then able to allocate sufficient time to their studies and to monitor the adequacy of their allocations. One final attribute of the proficient student is a sense of personal efftcacy. Proficient students are confident in their study methods. This characteristic is more than a by-product of past study successes, although this is undenyingly its primary source. This sense of personal efficacy combines self-confidence in one’s academic ability with a sense of personal control-the belief that learning is no one else’s responsibility but one’s own. The functional role played in study situations by this sense of efficacy is presumed to be twofold. First, confidence and a sense of control contribute directly to a task orientation (rather than an ego orientation) to learning, which can translate, for example, into intense, persistent, goaldirected effort as opposed to defensive posturing during study episodes. Second, a sense of self-efficacy is hypothesized to lead, in the absence of external training or guidance, to cumulative proficiency as a result of
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
269
study experiences. That is, a sense of personal efficacy is expected not only to derive from successful study experiences, but to drive learners to develop and modify their methods in order to improve future success. This list of attributes is not an exhaustive one. Students with a rich knowledge of a subject matter, for example, may well be more proficient at studying that subject matter than less knowledgeable students. However, these attributes were selected for their variability at the secondaryschool and college levels. CHARACTERISTICS SUSTAIN
OF A COURSE THAT SHOULD PROMOTE PROFICIENCY AT ACADEMIC STUDYING
AND
We began our research with the overarching hypothesis that studying is highly context dependent. In the case of studying for particular courses, which is the most common type of study situation in secondary schools and colleges, we hypothesized that the degree of engagement in study activities of one kind or another would depend in large measure on the demands placed on students by instructional features of those courses: the instructor’s assignments, the text, the lectures, the examinations, the grading practices, etc. . . . In deciding what kinds of course features to look at, we constructed some hypotheses concerning features of courses that might promote effective studying, as well as features that might impede effective studying. The right-hand column of Table 1 presents a list of some of the features that may relate to proficient study behavior on the part of students exposed to these features. These features are hypothesized to be characteristics of an ideal course, one that serves to promote and maintain the ideal learner attributes presented on the left-hand side of the Table. These features may be applicable to other study contexts as well, such as independent study and tutorial arrangements. One course feature that should be expected to foster proficient study activities is explicitness. An important feature of such explicitness is the presentation of criterion information in such a way that students understand what they are expected to be able to do and have some notion about how they might proceed to accomplish this goal. Instructors who state clearly and early what they expect of students in their courses not only provide their students with information about what, how, and how much to study, but they tend to reduce the amount of floundering and defensiveness that can occur when students do not know what to expect. Explicitness about criteria for performance evaluations is expected to lead to selective and performance-appropriate processing on the part of students. However, giving students information in advance about what will be on the test is not the same as giving them the very items of information that they will be required to reproduce on these tests. This
270
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
latter teaching strategy is likely to “short circuit” students’ engagement in productive study activities. A second class of course characteristics has to do with the type and amount of challenge posed by course materials, presentations, and inclass activities. According to our hypotheses, challenging courses present a relatively large volume of material that is sufficiently difficult and conceptual, and presented at a sufficiently rapid pace to prompt students to engage in strategic behavior, that is, to attempt some selective or generative strategy in order to cope with the work load. Challenging courses should prompt students to differentiate among sources and items of information, to engage in comprehension-enhancing activities, and to transform and reduce information on their own. Optimally challenging courses might have demands designed so that students are engaged, but not overwhelmed. These courses might also have certain instructor-provided supports that serve to induce, guide, and maintain strategic activity on the part of students. We hypothesized that such supports might include interesting lectures, instructor availability for special help in comprehension, the presence of discussions, and periodic checks on comprehension. The next class of course features is really inseparable from the previous two, and refers to both the relative demand for information transformation and the degree of congruence between course work and the criterion performance. Courses that prompt students to engage in proficient study activities are expected to be ones that (a) encourage, require, and help students to transform the raw material of the course into information that can be integrated with other information from that course or with students’ prior knowledge, and (b) require students to demonstrate the extent to which new content is understood and integrated with other knowledge on some kind of criterion task. This latter characteristic, which we have called “the link between the course materials and the criterion task,” is assumed to be an especially important characteristic in academic contexts. Instructor-developed tests that require students to go beyond the information given or to construct relations between concepts should prompt students to engage in more proficient study practices, as defined by retention and transfer performance, than tests which call for the reproduction of information (Mayer, 1987). However, the adequacy of a test for prompting effective studying cannot be judged on the basis of the test questions alone. The questions must be reasonable extensions or applications of course content without being mere reproductions or paraphrases of questions covered in the course. For example, consider the situation where an exam question requires students to compare two events according to some criterion. If, as we observed in several courses, the instructor provides students with this question and suggests answers in advance of the test, the effective demand on students’ study activities
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
271
is for verbatim reproduction rather than integration. The cumulative effect of such a testing strategy ought to be to discourage, rather than encourage, constructive processing of relations among course content. Proficiency in studying should require the opportunity to practice all of the components of self-directed learning in such a way that improvement can take place. Consequently, an additional course characteristic that would seem to be involved in promoting effective studying is latitude for self-directed learning. Latitude might involve (a) the explicit encouragement of self-directed learning, (b) some mechanism by which students can get feedback concerning the adequacy of their cognitive processing and self-management activities, and (c) some reward for engaging in selfdirected learning. Studying can be a very effortful process, one that is laden with affective significance and psychological risk. There are many compelling reasons to avoid studying and to engage in one or another type of defensive posturing. Consequently, we hypothesize that a supportive climate is an important course feature for prompting and maintaining effective studying. A supportive climate should be characterized by the absence of stress and threats to students’ sense of self-worth, and the presence of encouragements designed to strengthen students’ sense of personal efftcacy. Examples of these features include the presence of individualistic versus competitive grading, absolute versus norm-referenced standards, frequent, informative, and encouraging feedback, and the attribution of success and failure to effort rather than to ability. A DASH OF REALITY
Up to this point, the discussion has focused on ideal student and course characteristics. Data from our survey of students’ study activities (Christopoulos, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Curley, Estrin, Thomas, & Rohwer, 1987, Jensen Delucchi, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Strage, Tyler, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Thomas, Iventosch, & Rohwer, 1987) provide evidence that the reality of students’ study activities at the secondary and college level falls short of the above description of proficiency. These data also reveal that the pattern of demands and supports for self-directed learning departs from the picture presented above in several important ways. With respect to the quality of students’ study activities, we found a number of interesting results. We administered two surveys to juniorhigh-school, senior-high-school, and college students enrolled in social science courses. One survey focused on routine day-to-day study activities in those courses, and the other dealt with test preparation activities. Scales derived from these surveys allow for comparisons between classes of activities that seemed to us to represent “more” versus “less” profi-
272
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
cient study practices. For example, overall, students report engaging in what we refer to as Duplicative Processing activities to a greater degree than they engage in Constructive Processing activities. Duplicative Processing activities are activities that involve the unaltered reencoding or mental recycling of information; Constructive Processing activities are those that involve elaborating, reorganizing, contrasting, integrating, or summarizing information. This greater frequency of engagement in Duplicative versus Constructive Processing activities was found at all grade levels for routine studying and at all levels except college for test preparation, where the mean engagement figures were about equal for the two classes of activities. Similar results emerged when we compared the frequency of engagement in selective versus nonselective processing activities. Survey results revealed that activities defined as Uniform Processing activities were engaged in to a greater degree than Selective Notetaking activities at all educational levels. Items that contribute to the Uniform Processing scale include those for which students report paying equal attention to all reading or study materials rather than selecting information for special attention because of its difficulty or potential relevance . When we looked at the kinds of activities that were most effective in terms of the test grade earned in these courses, a similar pattern emerged. Overall, the test preparation activity most closely associated with success on achievement tests at all levels was the class of activities that we have called Uniform Processing. Apparently, students are able to survive, even at an extremely competitive university, by engaging routinely in what we consider to be fairly desultory study activities. Moreover, proficiency in these settings, to the extent that achievement on unit tests is an index of proficiency, seems to be associated with general nonselective, nontransformational activities, rather than with the kinds of constructive strategies identified as the hallmark of the mature learner in laboratory research. We also collected data on a number of characteristics of the courses enrolled in by these same students. One of the purposes of this aspect of the investigation was to examine the degree of engagement in different kinds of study activities as a function of course features. Data from these analyses lend support to our general hypothesis that the quality of students’ study activities is directly related to the demands courses make on students, as well as to the supports that are provided to help students cope with those demands. For example, we found that across courses at the junior-high-school level, increases in one aspect of the cognitive challenge associated with a course, namely, the amount of information that must be processed, is associated with increased engagement in three kinds of strategic test-preparation activities. These activities are (a) Cognitive Monitoring activities, (b) activities that Focus on Test Relevance,
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
273
and (c) Selective Notetaking. Likewise, the presence of supports for integration in the form of text-based relational aids was associated with increased engagement in Constructive Processing activities at the college level, whereas the presence of compensations for integration (e.g., teacher handouts that describe relationships between main ideas) was associated with a decline in Constructive Processing at both the juniorhigh-school and college levels. However, not all of our results were as straightforward and readily interpretable as these examples. In fact, many of our analyses concerning one-to-one relationships between course features and engagement in study activities yielded puzzling results. For example, courses rated as high in demand for integration were associated with significantly greater student engagement in Constructive Processing activities in the context of test preparation. However, this effect was limited to the college level. In fact, high integration demand was associated with a significant decrement in engagement in Constructive Processing activities at the juniorhigh-school level. Moreover, engagement in Constructive Processing activities during test preparation was not associated with academic achievement at any grade level. This and other anomalies that emerged from our data seem to suggest the need to modify our model of academic studying, at least as it relates to normative practices in schools. Although there was some evidence for the importance, in terms of academic achievement, of each of the student attributes listed in Table 1, these attributes do not describe the activities engaged in by the average student in the typical social science course. Moreover, with regard to course characteristics, although there was considerable support for the hypothesis that course demand and support characteristics affect students’ study activity engagement, the principles behind these relationships appear to be more complex than originally anticipated. Future research will attempt to describe some of the links among course features, study activities, and learning outcomes. However, the present data suggest some preliminary ideas that may form the underpinnings of future models. First, course characteristics do not always affect study activities in a direct fashion. There appears to be a curvilinear relationship between some course characteristics and particular study activities. For example, increases in the volume of information that must be covered for a course may prompt increases in the degree of selective processing activities such as notetaking, but only up to a point. Under conditions of great volume students’ study practices seem to become less selective and more disorganized than under conditions of moderate volume. A second idea that emerged from the existing data is that course demands and supports appear to interact in their effect on students’ study
274
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
activities. For example, the effect of integration demands inherent in an instructor’s assignments or in the texts used in a course can be amplified by the presence of criterion performance requirements with high integration demands. Likewise, the effect of these demands can be attenuated by criterion performance requirements that call for reproductive responses, especially among those students who tend to focus on the criterion. Relatedly, the presence of presumed “supports” can often act to dilute the effect of demands, making it unnecessary for students to engage in particular kinds of study activities on their own. A prime example of this effect was observed in courses in which the instructor used the last class before the unit test as a review session. In most of the review sessions we observed, the instructor introduced either the test questions, the answers, or both. As a consequence, subsequent engagement in selective and generative study activities was not only unnecessary, it was a dangerous waste of time, at least as far as obtaining a high grade in the course was concerned. Despite the nominal course demands associated with the difficulty of the text, the pace of the lectures, etc., the effective demand in these courses was to reproduce what was presented on the day before the test. It remains to be investigated to what degree other instructorprovided “supports” such as handouts and in-class discussions of reading assignments, actually prompt or abrogate the need for students to engage in cognitive processing and self-management activities on their own. An additional idea that needs to be explored further concerns the possibility that certain characteristics of students play a mediating role in the relationship between course features and study activities. There are a number of examples in our data where increases in course demands that were expected to prompt strategic study activities actually served to depress these activities. In some of these cases, especially those involving grading practices and examination importance, increases in demands may affect different students in different ways depending, for example, on students’ feelings of personal efficacy. In conclusion, it is apparent that there is a serious disparity between what we believe to be attributes of proficient studying and the normative practices of both the typical and the successful student, at least in the courses we observed. Progress toward improving the quality of students’ study activities is hampered by the existence of several gaps in our knowledge concerning relationships among the different aspects of courses, characteristics of students, types of study activities, and learning outcomes. In order to uncover the principles that govern these relationships, it will be necessary to conduct a good deal of additional research in both laboratory and naturalistic settings. Despite the difficulty associated with the conduct of this research, the payoff would be great, both in terms of
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
275
helping schools to foster self-directed learning and in terms of developing the kind of “psychology of studying” envisioned by Rohwer (1984). REFERENCES BROWN, A. L., BRANSFORD, J. D., FERRARA, R. A., & CAMPIONE, J. C. (1983). Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, (pp. 657-680). New York: Longman. CHRISTOPOULOS,J., ROHWER, W. D., JR., &THOMAS, J. W. (1987). Grade-level differences in students’ study activities as a function of grade level. Contemporary Educarional Psychology,
12, 303-323.
CURLEY, R., ESTRIN, E., THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Relationships between study activities and achievement as a function of grade level and course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 324-343. ENTWISTLE, N. J. (1985, July). A model of the teaching-/earning process derived from research on student learning. Paper presented at the international conference on Cognitive Processes in Student Learning, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, England. JENSEN DELUCCHI, J., ROHWER, W. D., JR., &THOMAS, J. W. (1987). Study time allocation as a function of grade level and course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
12, 365-380.
MAYER, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processes during reading. In B. B&ton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 445461). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1984). An invitation to a developmental psychology of studying. In F. J. Morrison, C. A. Lord, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. l-57). New York: Academic Press. ROHWER, W. D., JR., & THOMAS, J. W. (1987). The role of mnemonic strategies in study effectiveness. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Zmaginal and mnemonic processes (pp. 428-450). New York: Springer-Verlag. STRAGE, A., TYLER, A. B., ROHWER, W. D., JR., & THOMAS, J. W. (1987). An analytic framework for assessing distinctive course features within and across grade levels. Contemporary
Educational
Psychology,
12, 280-302.
THOMAS, J. W., IVENTOSCH, L., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Relationships among student characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 334-364. THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19-41. THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying. Contemporary Educationul Psychology, 12, 381-385.
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Proficiency
13, 265-215 (1988)
at Academic
Studying
JOHN W. THOMAS Far
West Laboratory
for
Educational
Research
and Development
This article presents a hypothetical model, based largely on extant laboratory research, of (a) attributes of proficiency at academic studying, and (b) course features that should act to promote and support students’ engagement in sustained self-directed learning. This ideal model is contrasted with normative study behavior as indexed by results from a recent survey of adolescents’ study activities. Principles regarding the way in which course demands and supports act to inhibit study proficiency in academic settings are discussed. o 1988 Academic PXSS, 1~.
It is only recently that psychologists and educators have come to realize that academic studying in general, and study proficiency in particular, cannot be adequately described on the basis of existing research and theory. Although research on prose learning, reading comprehension, and memory have provided information on methods that facilitate learning from text and on ways that expert studiers differ from novices, most of the available research involves supervised, well-defined tasks. Academic studying, on the other hand, can be characterized as an isolated and individual activity that takes place in a relatively ill-defined environment. In most instances, students are given neither directions for, nor instruction in, what or how to study. As a consequence, studying is unique in its requirement for self-initiated, self-defined, and self-regulated effort (Thomas & Rohwer, 1987). Recent attempts to capture the unique aspects of studying in academic settings (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Entwistle, 1985; Rohwer & Thomas, 1987) feature the separate and interacting roles played by course features (e.g., the criterion, text characteristics) and student characteristics (styles, abilities, volitional characteristics). This article is an attempt to extend these models by (a) defining attributes of proficiency at academic studying, (b) defining course characteristics that might affect the promotion and maintenance of such proficiency, and (c) presenting some examples of how the real world of academic studying departs from this ideal picture. Our speculations about proficiency at academic studying derives from the beginning stages of an investigation we are currently conducting of students’ study activities across the period Reprint requests may be sent to J.W.T. at the Autonomous Learning Project, Far West Laboratory, 1855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 17984-02). 265 0361-476X/88 $3.00 Copyright AU rights
0 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
266
JOHN W. THOMAS
of adolescence (Thomas & Rohwer, 1987). We were interested in identifying the universe of such activities engaged in by students in the courses they take, as well as the extent to which these activities are influenced by particular features of these courses. In the process of building our instruments and sharpening our hypotheses, we developed some models of different aspects of studying. First, we developed a model of the different component activities of studying, and what proficiency at these components might consist of-what students might have to know, be good at, or be willing to do in order to cope with the demands of courses and of study tasks. Second, we developed a model of significant course featurescourse requirements and conditions that might increase the relative demand on students’ study activities or those that might support or compensate for engagement in these activities. Table 1 presents a current version of these models. The listings displayed in the two columns in Table 1 are ideal descriptions, based in part TABLE IDEAL
STUDENT
AND COURSE
1
CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED ACADEMIC STUDYING
Student attributes A. Focus on the Criterion 1. Cue-seeking 2. Strategy selection 3. Self-assessment B. Spontaneous Engagement in Knowledge-Acquisition Activities 1. Selection 2. Comprehension-enhancement 3. “Deep Processing” 4. Cognitive monitoring C. Spontaneous Engagement in Activities that Transform Knowledge for some Purpose 1. Elaboration 2. Integration 3. Application D. Spontaneous Engagement in Self-Management Activities as Needed I. Time management 2. Effort management E. Strong Sense of Personal Efficacy 1. Confidence 2. Control 3. Commitment to improvement
WITH
PROFICIENCY
AT
Course characteristics A. Explicit Statement of the Criterion, Expectations, and Standards B. Presence of Appropriate Cognitive Challenge I. Difficulty, volume, pace, abstractness of material 2. Provision of comprehension aids, e.g., interesting presentation, checks on comprehension C. Demands and Supports for the Transformation or Integration of Course Content 1. Importance of integration 2. Criterion demands for integration 3. Noncongruence between course material and criterion demands D. Latititude for Self-Direction 1. Opportunity for practice 2. Opportunity for feedback 3. Encouragement E. Supportive Climate 1. Absence of stress factors, e.g., competitive grading 2. Supports for efficacy
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
267
on conjecture and in part on the results of extant laboratory research. Accordingly, it remained to be seen whether these models would be useful for describing the way things ought to be, not to mention the reality of day-to-day academic studying as we observed it. CHARACTERISTICS
OF PROFICIENT
STUDENTS
Although a profile of the proficient student must be pieced together from the results of several investigations, there seems to be considerable agreement among investigators about what constitutes effective studying practices. The left-hand column of Table 1 lists some hypothetical attributes of the proficient student. These attributes derive, for the most part, from the results of laboratory investigations in which differences in outcomes on some experimental task are linked to differences in some study behavior observable during learning. In light of the fact that many of the findings from these sources are specific to particular age ranges, subject matters, or task conditions, this list should be regarded as a working hypothesis. Proficient studiers have been characterized as goal oriented. Their study activities are guided by an understanding of what they ought to be able to do when their studying is completed. Stated in another way, proficient studiers maintain a focus on what is expected of them in a particular situation. This awareness of the criterion translates into some unique activities. Proficient learners are conscious of and will seek out cues concerning what is most important in a course. They are able to make judgments about which information is more important than other information, based on criterion knowledge. Moreover, proficient studiers are able to use information about the criterion to select processing strategies and review strategies that are most appropriate for this criterion performance. Specific activities that ought to characterize the proficient studier in an academic situation include asking questions to clarify the purpose of an assignment, estimating what portion of lecture content might be covered on an upcoming test, and evaluating readiness by testing oneself against likely examination questions. Proficient studiers know how to acquire knowledge efficiently. Knowledge acquisition activities include selecting important from less important information, reading for meaning, altering reading rate to accommodate difficult material, solving comprehension problems as they occur, and monitoring the process and adequacy of the end product. Proficient studiers engage in these learning-enhancing activities in a self-initiated, strategic, and self-regulated fashion. A third class of activities that can be used to characterize proficient studiers has to do with the way in which they interpret and review material to be learned. Proficient studiers have a repertoire of methods that
268
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
they use to make learning material more memorable and to make relationships between that material and other sources more clear. (See Levin, 1988). Whereas some learners are satisfied with the results of simply reading and/or rereading new material, the proficient learner acts to encode new information in such a way as to make it easily retrievable on a subsequent occasion, to transform and personalize the material in order to make its implications and deep-level meanings more apparent, and, in the case of concepts and principles, to test the adequacy of his or her knowledge by applying the newly learned information to some kind of problem or criterion task. For example, we observed an eighth-grade class that was studying the Civil War. Following a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the North versus the South, a student asked her teacher why the North Vietnamese were so successful in the war in Vietnam when they, like the unsuccessful South, had smaller numbers and fewer armaments than their enemy. This, presumably, is an example of a student applying a newly learned principle to stored knowledge in a way that should enhance both comprehension and memory. An additional class of activities concerns the management of time and effort devoted to learning. Studying is usually an arduous, isolated activity. It often takes place in a distraction-filled environment, one that is full of alternative pursuits. Proficient learners are those who know the “temptations that flesh is heir to” and have a ready repertoire of techniques for maintaining concentration, getting themselves started on learning tasks, and avoiding procrastination and perseveration. In short, proficient learners have the means for “keeping on track,” if and when they need such means. Proticient learners are ones who have a good sense of time as well. They know how much time a study task will take and how much time they will need to complete that task given other considerations. They are then able to allocate sufficient time to their studies and to monitor the adequacy of their allocations. One final attribute of the proficient student is a sense of personal efftcacy. Proficient students are confident in their study methods. This characteristic is more than a by-product of past study successes, although this is undenyingly its primary source. This sense of personal efficacy combines self-confidence in one’s academic ability with a sense of personal control-the belief that learning is no one else’s responsibility but one’s own. The functional role played in study situations by this sense of efficacy is presumed to be twofold. First, confidence and a sense of control contribute directly to a task orientation (rather than an ego orientation) to learning, which can translate, for example, into intense, persistent, goaldirected effort as opposed to defensive posturing during study episodes. Second, a sense of self-efficacy is hypothesized to lead, in the absence of external training or guidance, to cumulative proficiency as a result of
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
269
study experiences. That is, a sense of personal efficacy is expected not only to derive from successful study experiences, but to drive learners to develop and modify their methods in order to improve future success. This list of attributes is not an exhaustive one. Students with a rich knowledge of a subject matter, for example, may well be more proficient at studying that subject matter than less knowledgeable students. However, these attributes were selected for their variability at the secondaryschool and college levels. CHARACTERISTICS SUSTAIN
OF A COURSE THAT SHOULD PROMOTE PROFICIENCY AT ACADEMIC STUDYING
AND
We began our research with the overarching hypothesis that studying is highly context dependent. In the case of studying for particular courses, which is the most common type of study situation in secondary schools and colleges, we hypothesized that the degree of engagement in study activities of one kind or another would depend in large measure on the demands placed on students by instructional features of those courses: the instructor’s assignments, the text, the lectures, the examinations, the grading practices, etc. . . . In deciding what kinds of course features to look at, we constructed some hypotheses concerning features of courses that might promote effective studying, as well as features that might impede effective studying. The right-hand column of Table 1 presents a list of some of the features that may relate to proficient study behavior on the part of students exposed to these features. These features are hypothesized to be characteristics of an ideal course, one that serves to promote and maintain the ideal learner attributes presented on the left-hand side of the Table. These features may be applicable to other study contexts as well, such as independent study and tutorial arrangements. One course feature that should be expected to foster proficient study activities is explicitness. An important feature of such explicitness is the presentation of criterion information in such a way that students understand what they are expected to be able to do and have some notion about how they might proceed to accomplish this goal. Instructors who state clearly and early what they expect of students in their courses not only provide their students with information about what, how, and how much to study, but they tend to reduce the amount of floundering and defensiveness that can occur when students do not know what to expect. Explicitness about criteria for performance evaluations is expected to lead to selective and performance-appropriate processing on the part of students. However, giving students information in advance about what will be on the test is not the same as giving them the very items of information that they will be required to reproduce on these tests. This
270
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
latter teaching strategy is likely to “short circuit” students’ engagement in productive study activities. A second class of course characteristics has to do with the type and amount of challenge posed by course materials, presentations, and inclass activities. According to our hypotheses, challenging courses present a relatively large volume of material that is sufficiently difficult and conceptual, and presented at a sufficiently rapid pace to prompt students to engage in strategic behavior, that is, to attempt some selective or generative strategy in order to cope with the work load. Challenging courses should prompt students to differentiate among sources and items of information, to engage in comprehension-enhancing activities, and to transform and reduce information on their own. Optimally challenging courses might have demands designed so that students are engaged, but not overwhelmed. These courses might also have certain instructor-provided supports that serve to induce, guide, and maintain strategic activity on the part of students. We hypothesized that such supports might include interesting lectures, instructor availability for special help in comprehension, the presence of discussions, and periodic checks on comprehension. The next class of course features is really inseparable from the previous two, and refers to both the relative demand for information transformation and the degree of congruence between course work and the criterion performance. Courses that prompt students to engage in proficient study activities are expected to be ones that (a) encourage, require, and help students to transform the raw material of the course into information that can be integrated with other information from that course or with students’ prior knowledge, and (b) require students to demonstrate the extent to which new content is understood and integrated with other knowledge on some kind of criterion task. This latter characteristic, which we have called “the link between the course materials and the criterion task,” is assumed to be an especially important characteristic in academic contexts. Instructor-developed tests that require students to go beyond the information given or to construct relations between concepts should prompt students to engage in more proficient study practices, as defined by retention and transfer performance, than tests which call for the reproduction of information (Mayer, 1987). However, the adequacy of a test for prompting effective studying cannot be judged on the basis of the test questions alone. The questions must be reasonable extensions or applications of course content without being mere reproductions or paraphrases of questions covered in the course. For example, consider the situation where an exam question requires students to compare two events according to some criterion. If, as we observed in several courses, the instructor provides students with this question and suggests answers in advance of the test, the effective demand on students’ study activities
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
271
is for verbatim reproduction rather than integration. The cumulative effect of such a testing strategy ought to be to discourage, rather than encourage, constructive processing of relations among course content. Proficiency in studying should require the opportunity to practice all of the components of self-directed learning in such a way that improvement can take place. Consequently, an additional course characteristic that would seem to be involved in promoting effective studying is latitude for self-directed learning. Latitude might involve (a) the explicit encouragement of self-directed learning, (b) some mechanism by which students can get feedback concerning the adequacy of their cognitive processing and self-management activities, and (c) some reward for engaging in selfdirected learning. Studying can be a very effortful process, one that is laden with affective significance and psychological risk. There are many compelling reasons to avoid studying and to engage in one or another type of defensive posturing. Consequently, we hypothesize that a supportive climate is an important course feature for prompting and maintaining effective studying. A supportive climate should be characterized by the absence of stress and threats to students’ sense of self-worth, and the presence of encouragements designed to strengthen students’ sense of personal efftcacy. Examples of these features include the presence of individualistic versus competitive grading, absolute versus norm-referenced standards, frequent, informative, and encouraging feedback, and the attribution of success and failure to effort rather than to ability. A DASH OF REALITY
Up to this point, the discussion has focused on ideal student and course characteristics. Data from our survey of students’ study activities (Christopoulos, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Curley, Estrin, Thomas, & Rohwer, 1987, Jensen Delucchi, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Strage, Tyler, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987; Thomas, Iventosch, & Rohwer, 1987) provide evidence that the reality of students’ study activities at the secondary and college level falls short of the above description of proficiency. These data also reveal that the pattern of demands and supports for self-directed learning departs from the picture presented above in several important ways. With respect to the quality of students’ study activities, we found a number of interesting results. We administered two surveys to juniorhigh-school, senior-high-school, and college students enrolled in social science courses. One survey focused on routine day-to-day study activities in those courses, and the other dealt with test preparation activities. Scales derived from these surveys allow for comparisons between classes of activities that seemed to us to represent “more” versus “less” profi-
272
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
cient study practices. For example, overall, students report engaging in what we refer to as Duplicative Processing activities to a greater degree than they engage in Constructive Processing activities. Duplicative Processing activities are activities that involve the unaltered reencoding or mental recycling of information; Constructive Processing activities are those that involve elaborating, reorganizing, contrasting, integrating, or summarizing information. This greater frequency of engagement in Duplicative versus Constructive Processing activities was found at all grade levels for routine studying and at all levels except college for test preparation, where the mean engagement figures were about equal for the two classes of activities. Similar results emerged when we compared the frequency of engagement in selective versus nonselective processing activities. Survey results revealed that activities defined as Uniform Processing activities were engaged in to a greater degree than Selective Notetaking activities at all educational levels. Items that contribute to the Uniform Processing scale include those for which students report paying equal attention to all reading or study materials rather than selecting information for special attention because of its difficulty or potential relevance . When we looked at the kinds of activities that were most effective in terms of the test grade earned in these courses, a similar pattern emerged. Overall, the test preparation activity most closely associated with success on achievement tests at all levels was the class of activities that we have called Uniform Processing. Apparently, students are able to survive, even at an extremely competitive university, by engaging routinely in what we consider to be fairly desultory study activities. Moreover, proficiency in these settings, to the extent that achievement on unit tests is an index of proficiency, seems to be associated with general nonselective, nontransformational activities, rather than with the kinds of constructive strategies identified as the hallmark of the mature learner in laboratory research. We also collected data on a number of characteristics of the courses enrolled in by these same students. One of the purposes of this aspect of the investigation was to examine the degree of engagement in different kinds of study activities as a function of course features. Data from these analyses lend support to our general hypothesis that the quality of students’ study activities is directly related to the demands courses make on students, as well as to the supports that are provided to help students cope with those demands. For example, we found that across courses at the junior-high-school level, increases in one aspect of the cognitive challenge associated with a course, namely, the amount of information that must be processed, is associated with increased engagement in three kinds of strategic test-preparation activities. These activities are (a) Cognitive Monitoring activities, (b) activities that Focus on Test Relevance,
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
273
and (c) Selective Notetaking. Likewise, the presence of supports for integration in the form of text-based relational aids was associated with increased engagement in Constructive Processing activities at the college level, whereas the presence of compensations for integration (e.g., teacher handouts that describe relationships between main ideas) was associated with a decline in Constructive Processing at both the juniorhigh-school and college levels. However, not all of our results were as straightforward and readily interpretable as these examples. In fact, many of our analyses concerning one-to-one relationships between course features and engagement in study activities yielded puzzling results. For example, courses rated as high in demand for integration were associated with significantly greater student engagement in Constructive Processing activities in the context of test preparation. However, this effect was limited to the college level. In fact, high integration demand was associated with a significant decrement in engagement in Constructive Processing activities at the juniorhigh-school level. Moreover, engagement in Constructive Processing activities during test preparation was not associated with academic achievement at any grade level. This and other anomalies that emerged from our data seem to suggest the need to modify our model of academic studying, at least as it relates to normative practices in schools. Although there was some evidence for the importance, in terms of academic achievement, of each of the student attributes listed in Table 1, these attributes do not describe the activities engaged in by the average student in the typical social science course. Moreover, with regard to course characteristics, although there was considerable support for the hypothesis that course demand and support characteristics affect students’ study activity engagement, the principles behind these relationships appear to be more complex than originally anticipated. Future research will attempt to describe some of the links among course features, study activities, and learning outcomes. However, the present data suggest some preliminary ideas that may form the underpinnings of future models. First, course characteristics do not always affect study activities in a direct fashion. There appears to be a curvilinear relationship between some course characteristics and particular study activities. For example, increases in the volume of information that must be covered for a course may prompt increases in the degree of selective processing activities such as notetaking, but only up to a point. Under conditions of great volume students’ study practices seem to become less selective and more disorganized than under conditions of moderate volume. A second idea that emerged from the existing data is that course demands and supports appear to interact in their effect on students’ study
274
JOHN
W.
THOMAS
activities. For example, the effect of integration demands inherent in an instructor’s assignments or in the texts used in a course can be amplified by the presence of criterion performance requirements with high integration demands. Likewise, the effect of these demands can be attenuated by criterion performance requirements that call for reproductive responses, especially among those students who tend to focus on the criterion. Relatedly, the presence of presumed “supports” can often act to dilute the effect of demands, making it unnecessary for students to engage in particular kinds of study activities on their own. A prime example of this effect was observed in courses in which the instructor used the last class before the unit test as a review session. In most of the review sessions we observed, the instructor introduced either the test questions, the answers, or both. As a consequence, subsequent engagement in selective and generative study activities was not only unnecessary, it was a dangerous waste of time, at least as far as obtaining a high grade in the course was concerned. Despite the nominal course demands associated with the difficulty of the text, the pace of the lectures, etc., the effective demand in these courses was to reproduce what was presented on the day before the test. It remains to be investigated to what degree other instructorprovided “supports” such as handouts and in-class discussions of reading assignments, actually prompt or abrogate the need for students to engage in cognitive processing and self-management activities on their own. An additional idea that needs to be explored further concerns the possibility that certain characteristics of students play a mediating role in the relationship between course features and study activities. There are a number of examples in our data where increases in course demands that were expected to prompt strategic study activities actually served to depress these activities. In some of these cases, especially those involving grading practices and examination importance, increases in demands may affect different students in different ways depending, for example, on students’ feelings of personal efficacy. In conclusion, it is apparent that there is a serious disparity between what we believe to be attributes of proficient studying and the normative practices of both the typical and the successful student, at least in the courses we observed. Progress toward improving the quality of students’ study activities is hampered by the existence of several gaps in our knowledge concerning relationships among the different aspects of courses, characteristics of students, types of study activities, and learning outcomes. In order to uncover the principles that govern these relationships, it will be necessary to conduct a good deal of additional research in both laboratory and naturalistic settings. Despite the difficulty associated with the conduct of this research, the payoff would be great, both in terms of
PROFICIENCY
AT
ACADEMIC
STUDYING
275
helping schools to foster self-directed learning and in terms of developing the kind of “psychology of studying” envisioned by Rohwer (1984). REFERENCES BROWN, A. L., BRANSFORD, J. D., FERRARA, R. A., & CAMPIONE, J. C. (1983). Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, (pp. 657-680). New York: Longman. CHRISTOPOULOS,J., ROHWER, W. D., JR., &THOMAS, J. W. (1987). Grade-level differences in students’ study activities as a function of grade level. Contemporary Educarional Psychology,
12, 303-323.
CURLEY, R., ESTRIN, E., THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Relationships between study activities and achievement as a function of grade level and course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 324-343. ENTWISTLE, N. J. (1985, July). A model of the teaching-/earning process derived from research on student learning. Paper presented at the international conference on Cognitive Processes in Student Learning, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, England. JENSEN DELUCCHI, J., ROHWER, W. D., JR., &THOMAS, J. W. (1987). Study time allocation as a function of grade level and course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
12, 365-380.
MAYER, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processes during reading. In B. B&ton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 445461). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1984). An invitation to a developmental psychology of studying. In F. J. Morrison, C. A. Lord, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. l-57). New York: Academic Press. ROHWER, W. D., JR., & THOMAS, J. W. (1987). The role of mnemonic strategies in study effectiveness. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Zmaginal and mnemonic processes (pp. 428-450). New York: Springer-Verlag. STRAGE, A., TYLER, A. B., ROHWER, W. D., JR., & THOMAS, J. W. (1987). An analytic framework for assessing distinctive course features within and across grade levels. Contemporary
Educational
Psychology,
12, 280-302.
THOMAS, J. W., IVENTOSCH, L., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Relationships among student characteristics, study activities, and achievement as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 334-364. THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19-41. THOMAS, J. W., & ROHWER, W. D., JR. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying. Contemporary Educationul Psychology, 12, 381-385.