Have you ever felt like you were spinning your wheels when it comes to studying for exams?
Do you notice your students studying, but still not getting results?
If so, you definitely want to check out Milenko Martinovich’s new article in the Stanford News. This article features the work of Stanford University psychology professor, Patricia Chen’s new work on how to help students study more effectively.
In the study, the intervention group was encouraged to utilize their meta-cognitive abilities- quite simply to “think about their thinking.”
Specifically, students were given an online survey prior to their exams in a statistics course and asked to “think about what might be on the exam and then strategize what resources they would use most effectively” according to Martinovich’s article.
Importantly, students were then asked to self-reflect, recalling why they chose the resources they chose and how they believed it would be effective in their learning.
This intervention lead to an increase in grades in the course by almost a third of a letter grade.
Please click here to read the article.
Questions for Discussion
- What was professor Chen’s research hypothesis?
- What is meta-cognition?
- Describe their intervention- “Strategic Resource Use.”
- In what circumstances does professor Chen say this would likely be most effective?
- What might educators need to do to support students in a “resource-scarce” environment?
- Besides studying for tests, how else does Chen suggest this might be used?
- How would you develop further research to learn more about this topic?
As an educator, I find this new study from Michigan State University a bit troubling. Quite simply, peer feedback was more beneficial than teacher feedback in an online psychology course.
The research study, co-authored by Michigan State University associate professor of education, Carey Roseth, published recently in the International Journal of Educational Research, found that when students were given feedback to the question, “Why do I have to learn this” from a peer (a confederate posing as a peer) the student averaged a 92 percent for the entire semester long course.
The students who received the feedback from the teacher earned an 86 percent for the course.
Quite surprisingly, the control group, those that did not receive any feedback, earned a 90 percent for the course-still better than those that earned feedback from a teacher.
Professor Roseth explains,”… As a student, I can identify with my peers and imagine myself using the course material in the same way they do. This gives the material meaning and a sense of purpose that goes beyond memorization. When I hear a peer’s story, it connects to the story I am telling myself about who I want to be in the future.”
Questions for Discussion
- How many students were in each of the groups? (Why is it important to know the sample size?)
- If there was only one course instructor, what other possible explanations for this outcome could there be?
- Do you predict the outcomes would be the same in a face to face course?
- What did the script say? Why is it important to know what the script was-how could the wording of the script impact the outcome? Would the response be different with a different script?
- These were all introductory education students-could that have an impact on the results?
- How else could you extend this research-replicate, different subjects different design?
- How could you use this information in your own classroom?
For more information, please read Andy Henion’s article on the Michigan State University website, MSU Today.