Limits...
Teaching students how to study: a workshop on information processing and self-testing helps students learn.

Stanger-Hall KF, Shockley FW, Wilson RE - CBE Life Sci Educ (2011)

Bottom Line: Students rated the workshop activities highly and performed significantly better on workshop-related final exam questions than the control groups.Student achievement (i.e., grade point average) was significantly correlated with overall final exam performance but not with workshop outcomes.This long-term (10 wk) retention of a self-testing effect across question levels and student achievement is a promising endorsement for future large-scale implementation and further evaluation of this "how to study" workshop as a study support for introductory biology (and other science) students.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. ksh@uga.edu

ABSTRACT
We implemented a "how to study" workshop for small groups of students (6-12) for N = 93 consenting students, randomly assigned from a large introductory biology class. The goal of this workshop was to teach students self-regulating techniques with visualization-based exercises as a foundation for learning and critical thinking in two areas: information processing and self-testing. During the workshop, students worked individually or in groups and received immediate feedback on their progress. Here, we describe two individual workshop exercises, report their immediate results, describe students' reactions (based on the workshop instructors' experience and student feedback), and report student performance on workshop-related questions on the final exam. Students rated the workshop activities highly and performed significantly better on workshop-related final exam questions than the control groups. This was the case for both lower- and higher-order thinking questions. Student achievement (i.e., grade point average) was significantly correlated with overall final exam performance but not with workshop outcomes. This long-term (10 wk) retention of a self-testing effect across question levels and student achievement is a promising endorsement for future large-scale implementation and further evaluation of this "how to study" workshop as a study support for introductory biology (and other science) students.

Show MeSH
Student performance on life cycle questions on the final exam. Workshop students tended to perform better than students in the control groups. Significant differences between groups are noted as *, P < 0.05 or **, P < 0.01 (after FDR correction for multiple comparisons). (A) Overall student performance (mean ± standard error) on the final exam and on life cycle questions. (B) Individual life cycle questions on the final exam (N = 7 in 2009 and N = 4 in 2008): % students who answered correctly, ^ = higher-level (application) questions.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3105925&req=5

Figure 5: Student performance on life cycle questions on the final exam. Workshop students tended to perform better than students in the control groups. Significant differences between groups are noted as *, P < 0.05 or **, P < 0.01 (after FDR correction for multiple comparisons). (A) Overall student performance (mean ± standard error) on the final exam and on life cycle questions. (B) Individual life cycle questions on the final exam (N = 7 in 2009 and N = 4 in 2008): % students who answered correctly, ^ = higher-level (application) questions.

Mentions: The advantage of using this control group is that students were exposed to the exact same lectures (style, delivery, and examples used) as the workshop group. The disadvantage of this control group is that cross-talk between students (in the same class) may have occurred, that is, students may have learned from each other during study sessions. Despite this possibility, the workshop group scored significantly higher than the control group (U = 4665.5, P = 0.001) on the life cycle questions of the final exam (Figure 5A). Compared to the control group, the workshop students performed significantly better (all P values are reported after FDR correction for multiple comparisons) on Question 1 (lower-level: Pearson χ2 = 3.739, borderline significant at P(1) < 0.05), Question 2 (higher-level: Pearson χ2 = 7.464, P(1) < 0.05), and Question 7 (lower-level: Pearson χ2 = 12.158, P(1) < 0.01) of the life cycle question series on the final exam. In fact, workshop students tended to perform better than the control group on all life cycle questions (Figure 5B), but the differences for the other questions were not significant. The overall performance on the final exam was not significantly different (U = 3723, P = 0.809) between groups, and there was no significant difference in students’ pre-existing achievement, as measured by self-reported GPA (workshop GPA = 3.353 ± 0.377, Fall 2009 control GPA = 3.283 ± 0.5; Mann-Whitney U = 3041.5, P = 0.438).


Teaching students how to study: a workshop on information processing and self-testing helps students learn.

Stanger-Hall KF, Shockley FW, Wilson RE - CBE Life Sci Educ (2011)

Student performance on life cycle questions on the final exam. Workshop students tended to perform better than students in the control groups. Significant differences between groups are noted as *, P < 0.05 or **, P < 0.01 (after FDR correction for multiple comparisons). (A) Overall student performance (mean ± standard error) on the final exam and on life cycle questions. (B) Individual life cycle questions on the final exam (N = 7 in 2009 and N = 4 in 2008): % students who answered correctly, ^ = higher-level (application) questions.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3105925&req=5

Figure 5: Student performance on life cycle questions on the final exam. Workshop students tended to perform better than students in the control groups. Significant differences between groups are noted as *, P < 0.05 or **, P < 0.01 (after FDR correction for multiple comparisons). (A) Overall student performance (mean ± standard error) on the final exam and on life cycle questions. (B) Individual life cycle questions on the final exam (N = 7 in 2009 and N = 4 in 2008): % students who answered correctly, ^ = higher-level (application) questions.
Mentions: The advantage of using this control group is that students were exposed to the exact same lectures (style, delivery, and examples used) as the workshop group. The disadvantage of this control group is that cross-talk between students (in the same class) may have occurred, that is, students may have learned from each other during study sessions. Despite this possibility, the workshop group scored significantly higher than the control group (U = 4665.5, P = 0.001) on the life cycle questions of the final exam (Figure 5A). Compared to the control group, the workshop students performed significantly better (all P values are reported after FDR correction for multiple comparisons) on Question 1 (lower-level: Pearson χ2 = 3.739, borderline significant at P(1) < 0.05), Question 2 (higher-level: Pearson χ2 = 7.464, P(1) < 0.05), and Question 7 (lower-level: Pearson χ2 = 12.158, P(1) < 0.01) of the life cycle question series on the final exam. In fact, workshop students tended to perform better than the control group on all life cycle questions (Figure 5B), but the differences for the other questions were not significant. The overall performance on the final exam was not significantly different (U = 3723, P = 0.809) between groups, and there was no significant difference in students’ pre-existing achievement, as measured by self-reported GPA (workshop GPA = 3.353 ± 0.377, Fall 2009 control GPA = 3.283 ± 0.5; Mann-Whitney U = 3041.5, P = 0.438).

Bottom Line: Students rated the workshop activities highly and performed significantly better on workshop-related final exam questions than the control groups.Student achievement (i.e., grade point average) was significantly correlated with overall final exam performance but not with workshop outcomes.This long-term (10 wk) retention of a self-testing effect across question levels and student achievement is a promising endorsement for future large-scale implementation and further evaluation of this "how to study" workshop as a study support for introductory biology (and other science) students.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. ksh@uga.edu

ABSTRACT
We implemented a "how to study" workshop for small groups of students (6-12) for N = 93 consenting students, randomly assigned from a large introductory biology class. The goal of this workshop was to teach students self-regulating techniques with visualization-based exercises as a foundation for learning and critical thinking in two areas: information processing and self-testing. During the workshop, students worked individually or in groups and received immediate feedback on their progress. Here, we describe two individual workshop exercises, report their immediate results, describe students' reactions (based on the workshop instructors' experience and student feedback), and report student performance on workshop-related questions on the final exam. Students rated the workshop activities highly and performed significantly better on workshop-related final exam questions than the control groups. This was the case for both lower- and higher-order thinking questions. Student achievement (i.e., grade point average) was significantly correlated with overall final exam performance but not with workshop outcomes. This long-term (10 wk) retention of a self-testing effect across question levels and student achievement is a promising endorsement for future large-scale implementation and further evaluation of this "how to study" workshop as a study support for introductory biology (and other science) students.

Show MeSH