Since we're looking for posts to fill the void, here's a little interesting
summer reading I've been doing. Some of it is relevant to some recurrent
questions that come up on TIPS (e.g., re. makeup tests, grading of group
projects).
----------
Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. (1993). Proficient autonomous learning:
Problems and prospects. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science
foundations of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
----------
"Autonomous Learning" is the authors' label for what we tend to call
"studying". They present a developmental theory of autonomous learning
including a cognitive component and an effort management component. The
cognitive component has four levels: Basic encoding, Selection,
Integration, and finally, Extension. The effort management component also
has four levels: Monitoring, Self-Regulation, Planning, and Evaluation.
Using that theory, the authors then look at characteristics of courses that
may help or hinder students' development of autonomous learning. These
characteristics include demands (e.g., amount of information, tasks),
supports (handouts, practice opportunities), and compensations (handing out
test items prior to the test, grading groups instead of individuals, giving
makeup tests).
Most of the "findings" are conjectures, though there were some supporting
studies. The authors describe some research of their own in which they
followed the demands, supports, and compensations of some undergraduate and
secondary-level courses.
Demands
One recurring note was the researchers' surprise at the "discontinuity"
between the practices at the secondary level and those at the undergraduate
level, particularly in the expectation that students would do the kind of
studying that requires selection and integration of material, rather than
just basic encoding of "predigested" material for simple recall tasks:
"A comparison of the items administered at the three levels of schooling
revealed that the percentage of items that called on students to integrate
information in constructing their answers did not increase by grade level
from junior high (18%) to high school (14%), but the difference between the
secondary and college levels was particularly remarkable. At the college
level, fully 99% of the itams on instructor-developed tests required the
integration of ideas; only 1% of the items we collected required
reproduction or comprehension of items of information. We hypothesized that
this discontinuity in the level of processing required by test items might
account for some of hte differences we observed between these levels in
students' engagement in the kinds of generative, selective processing
activities...as well as for the difficulties college students experience in
their ability to cope with the demands of college courses" (p. 17-18).
The authors continue by noting that at the junior high/high school levels,
essay tests accounted for less than 1% of all test items with matching (!)
being the most common format.
Supports
Feedback was seen as crucial, as it is a prerequisite to proper monitoring
(the lowest level of effort management). Students' perceptions that teachers
give feedback correlated positively with students ratings of the effort they
had put forth, and of their efficacy in the course. "Although the importance
of feedback is generally acknowledged by teachers, their routine feedback
practices have been criticized for emphasizing social comparison rather than
some measure of mastery and for failing to praise student effort as opposed
to normative performance" (p. 21). In other words, the authors felt that it
is important to the students' development of good study skills that the
teachers' feedback praise effort even when that effort fails to bring
learning in the discipline.
"More important perhaps, typical feeback practices do not often extend down
the the level of student performance on individual concepts or principles.
In the survey we conducted with high school biology teachers, we found that
although the majority of these teachers collected and graded homework
assignments only 37% returned homework with written comments...although
giving grades on quizzes and homework may be informative with respect to a
student's standing in the course, it does not help students to know how to
alter their study practices in future study sessions".
In a review of 9th-12th grade teachers' testing practices, "Problems were
included to see if students had done the required reading or had paid
attention in class but not whether they were assimilating an organized body
of knowledge" (p. 20).
Compensations
The recurring theme was the negative effect of providing students with what
should be the product of their studying ("a list of the specific items of
information that will be on the test and interpretive and integrative
summaries of the main ideas of the course", p. 23).
"Such provisions significantly reduce the demand on the part of students to
engage in selective and generative processing on their own. Furthermore,
teachers often supplement these handouts with drill and practice sessions
held on the day before the test, thus reducing the need for students to
engage in memory augmentation activities on their own. Althought these
provisions might be justified by instructors in that they probably improve
student performance on the upcoming test, they may have some long-range
unintended consequences. First, they may reduce the quality and quantity of
the autonomous study activities that students engage in throughout the
remainder of the course. Second, to the extent that the need to engage in
authonomous selective processing, comprehension-enhancing, and integrative
activities is lessened under compensatory conditions, the degree to which
students come to be able to apply the to-be-learned material to content
other than course content may be lessened. Third, these provisions may make
it less likely that studnets will acquire and develop personally-effective
study strategies on their own, thus leading to their lack of preparedness
for courses in which compensatory material is not provided" (p. 23).
About makeup tests and extra credit, the authors write, "Practices such as
these seem to reduce the risk of student failure. But, they also may act to
reduce the demand on students to expend effort and to be strategic in their
study activities. [In a previously mentioned study], a srong negative
correlation was obtained between the provision of extracredit and Autonomous
Management scores (r = -.77)" (p. 24).
Group work, grading "on a curve" when the entire class does poorly, and
grading exclusively on completion (rather than performance) were other
practices held to undercut learning of autonomous learning.
"One inference from these studies is that these same students who appear to
be deficient are relatively successful in the courses they take; that is,
they have relied successfully over the years of secondary schooling on
serviceable, low-level cognitive processing and effort management
strategies. Further, encoding, selection, integration, extension, and
effort-planning difficulites that might have emerged in different curricular
domains were anticipated and avoided by well-meaning instructors whose
concern for avoiding student failure led to their use of compensatory
practices. Because of such practices, students have no cause to abandon
their serviceable strategies and little reason to improve their study
activities" (p. 24).
=============================
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
