Teaching self-control of study behavior

Behav.

Rrs.

Sr Therlpy.

1972.

Vol.

IO. pp.

TEACHING

35 to 41.

Pergamon

Press.

SELF-CONTROL

Printed

in England

OF STUDY

BEHAVIOR

WILLIA~I M. BENEKEand MARY B. HARRIS Psychology

Dept.,

University

of New Mexico,

Albuquerque,

(RtWiWf

1971)

30 Jf+

New IMexico, U.S.A.

Summary-A self-control procedure to improve study habits was taught to 35 volunteer students at the University of New Mexico summer school. The program involved the utilization of stimulus control procedures, self-reinforcement and punishment, and the SQ3R method (Robinson, 1946) of studying. .SS receiving the lessons showeda significant gain in grade point average (C.P.A.) for the three semesters following the study over the two preceding semesters, when compared with those not receiving the lessons. This gain was not due to any change in University grading standards. No difference in C.P.A. gains was found between Ss who received and discussed the lessons in group meetings and those who simply received them individually in written form.

ANALYSES of study habits (e.g. Robinson, 1946) have made it clear that the major problem in improving student’s study habits is not the development of a set of well-defined principles for effective studying but rather transmitting this information to students and persuading them to use it. One approach to changing study habits which has had success with other behaviors which are refractory to change has been the use of behavior modification techniques, primarily positive and aversive operant conditioning and stimulus control procedures. Although most of the programs which have used such techniques have depended on contingencies arranged by the professional therapist or consultant involved, recent articles haveemphaszied the importance of self-control procedures in changing behavior (Gotdiamond, 1965; Harris, 1969; Kanfer, 1970; Marston and Feldman, 1971; Stuart, 1970; Zimmerman, 1970). Marston and Feldman (1971) have suggested that the success of a self-control program depends on two variables: the strength of the commitment act, (or covert decision to change one’s behavior) and the effectiveness of the self-controlling responses, which are the particular techniques used by the individual to change his own behavior. The present study attempted to affect both variables by first increasin, n the .Ss’ awareness of their reasons for wanting to change their study behavior and then instructing them in methods which could be used to facilitate such changes. Previous studies which have attempted to improve the study habits of college students have generally involved only small numbers of Ss (Doctor, 1970; Fox, 1962; Gotdiamond, 1965; Miller, 1964; Zimmerman, 1970). An exception to this is an article by Johnson and White (1971), which looked at the effect of self-observation on grades of students in a selfpaced, mastery graded introductory psychology course; however, since 80 per cent of all students earned an A in the course and since grades in other courses were not examined, the generality of the findings was not established. The present study attempted to develop a procedure which could be utilized easily and inexpensively with large numbers of Ss, rather than relying on the limited time which counselors have available for individual consultation.

35

36

~VILLIAM XI. BENEKE

and MARY

H. HARRIS

For this rsason ~rittsn lessons lrere deveIop2d which Ss could pick up and complzte at their convsni2nis. This procedu rr3 was compared lvith small group presrntn~ions, in./&\ ing thz Sam2 materic and lessons but with the presence and support of or&r students and an E. Another limitation on the generality of most stud& is their pery brief fo!low-l;p frequently involving only the grades at the end of the semester during which the project was completed. The present study examined grades in all coursss for t\vo scmestsrs prior to the project and three semesters subsequent to it in order to pzrmit a morz accurate assessment of the long-term effectiveness of the program.

METHOD SIIbjects Fifty-three college students who came voluntarily to the first meeting of the behavior n~od~~catioi~ project ser;,ed as Ss. Fifteen of the above Ss dropped out after the first meeting and were used as a control for any systematic changes in grading at the University of New Mexico, as were University-wide G.P.A.s obtained from the registrar. Of the remaining 38 Ss, 30 were assigned to group meetings and 8 were allowed to pick up written lessons and return them to E’s ofhe, otherwise lvorking entirely on their own. Ss ranged in age from I8 to 51 and included both undergraduate and graduate studmts. Procedure Ss w2r2 recruited at summer session registration and informzd of the nature of the project. The entire project was carried out during the summzr semester of 1970. Ss assigned to attend group meetings (Condition G) met twice a week with a graduate student E while Ss assigned to receive th2 lessons individually (Condition I) were permitted to work at their own rates untii I1 lessons had been completed. Group meetings involved presentation of the presznt lesson, discussion of study problems of the przvious week and encouragement to study. Bnseline data. During the first week Ss were asked to develop awareness of their current study habits. They were instructed to continue studyin, 0 as they had been, but to record their study time on data sheets provided by E. As Johnson and White (1971) and McFaIl (1970) have shown, such monitoring may itself produce desirable behavior changes. Ss also made lists of reasons for studying and for improvin, 0 their study behavior. This was done in order to increase the strength of their commitment to studying. Since: rewards for studying are usually delayed while rewards for incompatible behavior (dating, talking to friends, etc.) are more immediate, it was felt that it was particularly important to strengthen the commitment act as well as teaching self-control responses (Marston and Feldman, 1971). S~~~~~L~~LLS corrtrol. The third fesson was designed to bring S’s study behavior under explicit control. Ss were informed of the principle of stimulus control and its application to some everyday situations and were instructed to establish on2 (at most, two) places as a stimulus to study. Ss were to choose a place that was well lighted, fire of distracting stimuli and not associated with behavior incompatible with studying. Ss were instructed to do all or most of their studying at these places and to absolutely avoid doing other things there. Positke ~ei~l~#r~e~~~e~l~. The fourth lesson introduced the Ss to the concept of positive reinforcement and the importance of using powerful, immediate and contingent reinforcers. Suggested reinforcers included high probability behavior, food, money and cigarettes. All Ss mad2 lists of reinforcing activities and stimuli to us2 in strengthening study behavior. The response chosen for reinforcement was studying for 20 min or the average time S studied

TEACHIXG

SELF-CONTROL

OF STLIDY BEHA\‘IOR

37

per session the previous week, whichever was shorter. Ss were also taught to graph their study behavior (hours studied per day as a function of da:;s) so that improvement would be more apparent to the Ss, possibly providing extra reinforcement. Positive reinforcement II and SQ3 R (survey). The fifth lesson expanded upon the use of positive reinforcement and began to attack study efficiency by introducing the “survey” phas:: of the SQ3R method of study (Robinson, 1946). At the end of each 20 min study session Ss were instructed to decide whether to continue studying or to take their reinforcer immediately. It was stressed that S should not decide ahead of time to skip a reinforcer but should make the decision at the end of each session. Ss were also encouraged to set up additional reinforcers for longer term goals such as reading 3 chapters of history one week. Ss were allowed to select their own goals, but were required to: (a) make them explicit, (b) set goals that could be met in a week or less, (c) write them down and put them in a prominent place at their study area. Ss were also instructed to reward themselves generously when they attained a longer term goal, utilizing more powerful reinforcers. In this same lesson the SQ3R method and its rationale were introduced. It was pointed out that the major problem in getting Ss to use the SQ3R method was that SQ3R requires effort on the part of S and that many Ss try the SQ3R method but give up because of the effort involved before they learn it we!! enough to receive the benefits. In an attempt to overcome this problem SQ3R was introduced gradually. Ss were told to “survey” the material they were about to read. That is, before beginning to read they were to skim through the article reading headings, subheadings and the summary or final paragraph to get an overview of the content of the article. Ss were asked to practice surveying familiar materials before applying the technique to their lessons. Prmishent and SQ3 R (question and read). In this lesson Ss were introduced to punishment, as an option for dealing with behavior incompatible with studying. Suggested types of punishment included fines, denyin g oneself a pleasant activity, performing good-foryou-but-unpleasant activities (calisthenics, housework, etc.), and asking a friend or spouse for criticism. In addition to the use of punishment, lesson 6 also continued the introduction of the SQ3R study method. After surveying a reading assignment, Ss now were instructed to turn the first subheading or topic sentence into a question and to then actively read to answer the question, repeating the question and read phases for each successive section. As with the survey technique Ss were told to first practice on familiar material before attempting to use “question” and “read” on their homework. So3 R-(recite and review). The seventh lesson completed the introduction of the SQ3R technique, presenting the “recite” and “review” phases. The lesson also discussed some of the difficulties with underlining and suggested the advantages of recitation as an alternative. Additional uses of SQ3R. The eighth lesson presented modifications of SQ3R to allow its use in: (a) reading outside assignments, (b) readin g English Literature, (c) studying graphs and (d) studying scientific diagrams. These modifications may be found in Robinson (1946) and are not described here. Taking effective lecture notes. The ninth lesson suggested to the Ss a more efficient way to take notes in lectures than the two common practices of trying to record everything verbatim or taking almost no notes at al!. Ss were told to outline the lecture listing the major points, minor points, and, if necessary, al& examples in outline form. Hints were given for identifying key points in a speech. Revising notes by re-organizing and clarifying

35

LVIi_LI.4>f M. BESEKE and

MARY

B. HARRIS

details, preferably on the same day, was also stressed, especially in the case of the disorganized lecturer or :he student whose notes were often incomprehensible to him several we,-ks later. “RevieLving” lecture notes (as in SQ3R) was also recommendsd. E.azminntion skills. This lesson was included to provide skills designed to aid Ss in studying for and taking examinations. The SQ3R method was again emphasized as a good method of study for all examinations since it helps 5s to predict exam questions, stresses important concepts, and provides for recitation as a ‘-rehearsal” of performance expected on a test. Specific techniques for allaying test anxiety were also discussed including relaxation exercises, predicting questions, and developing a systematic approach to taking exams. Exams were then divided into “essay” and “objective” and considered separately. The common problems of each type of exam were discussed in detail and a number of specific techniques for dealing with them were suggested. This lesson also suggested using returned exams as study aids for a comprehensive final by analyzing previous errors, considering the emphasis and style of the professor’s questions, and isolating areas for extra study prior to the final exam. M&ntaining good study hobits. This lesson was intended as a review of the previous ten and as a guide for effective use of the basic concepts of stimulus control, reinforcement and punishment as well as SQ3R in the upcoming semester. The use of long-range planning to equalize Ss work load was also stressed. Techniques for strengthening the commitment to studying and for controllin; behavior on a long-term basis were presented. Ss \vere encouraged to comment on the program and to discuss which aspects had been most beneficial to them. Subsequent to the project, grades were obtained from the University Registrar for the two semesters preceding the study (fall 1969 and sprin g 1970) and for the next three semesters (summer 1970, fall 1970 and spring 1971). RESULTS MortOlity

A crucial question in the implementation of such a program is the ‘mortality’ rate. since Ss who drop out clearly cannot benefit from lessons they do not receive. Fifteen of the 53 Ss volunteering for the program attended only one meeting, and only nine of the Ss received all 11 lessons. Excluding the 1.5Ss who dropped out immediately, the mean number of lessons completed by Ss in the I Condition was 6.00 while Ss in Condition G completed 7.13. This difference was not significant, indicating that attending group sessions did not result in completion of more lessons than working individually. Study time

A second question was whether either treatment resulted in an increased amount of time-studying per day. The correlation between hours studied and lessons completed W:IS not significant (r=O.184; d.f.=36; p>O.lO). Nor were there any significant differences between the G and I conditions. Grades

The most important measure of the effects of the program is the change in grades of the Ss. Table 1 presents the mean grade point averages on a 4-point scale for the previous Drop-out Ss and participating Ss did not differ two and the subsequent three semesters. significantly on initial G.P.A. Data on all University grades appearing in Table 1 were also obtained from the registrar.

TEACHISG TABLE

1.

MEAX

SELF-COSTROL GRADE

OF STUDY

POW-~ AVERAGES

PERISIESTAL

ASD

ASD

CONTROL

Preexperimental

Group

(n)

BY SEMESTER FOR EY-

CONDITIOSS

Postexperimental

Fall, 1969 and spring, 1970 Lessons 3.32(11) 3.01(17) 2.52( 12)

0 l-6 7-12

39

BEH.‘tVIOR

Summer 1970 completed 3.26(14) 3.23(20) 3.50(16)

Fall 1970

Spring 1971

2.78(11) 3.13(21) 3.24(15)

3.06(10) 3.30(19) 3.49(10)

3.18(36)

3.37(29)

2.73

2.89

Summary All participating ss All University students

2.81(29)

2.96

3.35(36)

I

Note. The n varies as some Ss did not enroll for every semester. * The University of New Mexico does not tabulate summer grades. .8

r

1-6

i SUMMER FIG. 1. G.P.A.

gain by semester

FALL for Ss completing

SPRING 0, l-6 and 7-11

lessons.

Gain scores were computed by semester for the three semesters following the study. The mean G.P.A. from the previous two semesters was used as a baseline. Analysis of variance on gain scores (see Fig. 1) revealed a significant difference in gain scores for the summer semester (F=3,3107; d.f.=2, 36; ~~0.05). Drop-out .Ss gained a mean of 0.06 grade points (on a 4 point scale) while Ss who completed l-6 lessons and Ss who completed more than 7 gained 0.15 and 0.68 points respectively. Differences in gains for the fall and spring semesters, although not significant, were in the same order. The mean G.P.A. gain

for the three semesters was also computed for each S. Drop-out Ss showed a loss of 0.02 grade points while Ss completin g 1-6 and 7-11 Isssons gained 0.15 and 0.78 Srade points respsctively (T=3.62463; d.f.=2, 37:p
DISCUSSION The present study appears to provide an economical and effective procedure for improving study habits and grades. Ss \vho participated in the program showed greater gains than Ss who did not, and these gains appeared to last for at least two semesters. Since those who simply picked up written !essons and proceeded to implement the program themselves did as well as Ss who attended group meetings in addition to receiving lessons, this program could be used with large groups of Ss. As it is, the size of the group and the long-term follow-up present a substantial methodological improvement over the usual short-term case studies. An examination of all University grades su ggests that the true magnitude of the G.P.A. gains may have been underestimated due to temporary concessions granted students as a result ofcampus disturbances in May of 1970 which resulted in a substantially high-r G.P..4. for all University students durin g the 1970 spring semester (see Table I). This probably resulted in a somewhat inflated baseline from which gains were computed, resulting in a smaller amount of observed G.P.A. gain. Hence, this typz of program can reliably produce G.P.A. gains and the absolute gain should be at least of the magnitude reported in the present study. Since all conditions were subject to possible underestimation, dilfirencej between groups would not have been altered. The major problem with implementation of such a program is that of inducing Ss tti participate and keeping them motivated to do so. The gravity of this problem is strongly reflected in the ‘mortality’ data of thepresent study. as only 17 percent of students volu~?teering for the study completed all of the lessons. Although the lessons provide information about reinforcement and stimulus control, knowledge of behavior modification techniques clearly did not provide sufficient incentive for most Ss to continue to participate. This program is no panacea for unmotivated students who wish their grades to improve without effort. However, it does appear to be an effective and economical way of improving study habits for those who choose to use the procedures suggested.

TE+.CHISCi

SELF-COVTROL

OF STUDY

BEHA\

IOK

41

REFERENCES K. ivl..XPO~T~ J.. BURRS A. and ~'ELCH R. (1970) Group ccunseling versus behavior thera;7y in treatment ofcollege underachievement. Behav. Rex. & i%mpy S,S7-S9. Fox L. (1962) Effecting the use of efficient studv habits. J. Matherks 1, 7546. GOLDIASIOND I. (1965) Self-control procedures in personal behacior problems. Ps:~cltol. Rep. 17, 851-968. HARRIS M. B. (1969) Self-directed program for weight control: A pilot study. J. ahnorn?. Pstrhol. 7-1, 263-270. JOHXSCW S. hl. and WHITE G. (1971) Self-observation as an agent of behavioral change. Behnv. Therap) (in press). KASFER F. H. (1970) The maintenance of behavior by self-generated stimuli and reinfarczme;lt. Paper presented at The Confsrcnce on Perspectives on the Psychology of Private Events. McFa~r R. M. (1970) The effects of self-monitoring on normal smokiil_c behavior. J. conslrlr. clin. f’s,vrlrol. 35, 135-112. ~~ARSTCJS A. R. and FELIXIAN S. E. (1971) Toward use of self-control in behavior modification. Unpublished paper, UniverGty of Southern California and Northern Illinois University. MILLER L. K. (1964) A no:: on the control of study behavior. J. e.rp. child Psychal. 1, 108-I IO lZosr\so\; F. P. (19-15) Eficrive Sfutiv. Harper. New York. STUART. R. B. (1970) Si:&onal or self-contiol of problematic behaviors. In rlrlr~rx-rs ii1 Behm~ior Thcmp,~~ (Editor R. D. Rusts). Academic Press, New York. ZIW~ERSIAN J. (1970) Applications of productive avoidance to the problem of accelerating “Productive” behavior in humans: Rationale, some data, and some speculations. Unpublished paper, Indiana University School of Medicine. DOCTOR