On the Value of
“Study Groups”

In the opening lecture for my General Psychology
survey course, ] have always supported the “thesis” of
study groups. This summer, I had occasion to test my
“lip service.”

€
Two days prior to the Unit III] Exam, one of my stu-
dents asked: “When are you going to form study
groups?” Obviously, we had had a communication
breakdown! I had never intended to “formalize” this
process.

However, I seized on an opportunity to conduct a
research project on the usefulness of this learning
strategy (without informing the students).

I had scheduled a 30-minute review, followed by a
one-hour multiple-choice exam, for the next day. |
altered the schedule to a 30-minute review, followed by
one hour of “study groups.”

That afternoon I created a random grouping. | ar-
ranged the 30 students into five groups. I identified the
five students who had received the highest scores
(total) on the first two exams. They were each, based
on alphabetical order in the gradebook, assigned to one
of the five groups. I repeated this procedure for the
second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth lowest scores.
Theoretically, the five groups met the criteria for ac-
ceptable randomness.

| already had a “control group,” based on previous
research. (I routinely examine the data on my exams in
an attempt to evaluate my delivery system. My five
exams in this survey course are 60 points, four foil, and
multiple choice.)

Historically, the mean differential between Unit
Exam II] and Unit Exam I has been approximately +1
point. I have attributed this difference to students be-
coming familiar with my teaching and testing “style”
and the mutual “rapport” we have developed.

The difference in mean scores between Unit Exams
II, III, IV, and V has been statistically insignificant. The
“norm” difference varies from +.2 to -.2.

Cs

I assigned the five study groups to five separate
classrooms and advised them as follows:

1. They had one hour before the period was formally
over, but they were required to stay together for at
least 30 minutes. (Four groups met for the entire
hour; one group “split” after 30 minutes.)

2. 1 would be available for review, clarification, etc.
(None of the groups “summoned” me; but I “stuck
my head” into each room, and four of the groups
posed some query.)

I eagerly awaited the results; after all, | believe in the
principles of educational psychology! Relevant data
are as follows:

N = 30

Unit II Mean = 49.7

Unit II] Mean = 52.5

Difference = +2.8 (Study Groups)
Statistically significant? Looking at the grading proce-

dure, it appears to be.
Students are graded on a percentage basis:
Difference
90% (x 60 pts.) = 54= A — 6pts.
80% (x60 pts. = 48 = B — 6pts.
70% (x 60 pts.) = 42 = C — 6pts.
60% (x 60 pts.) = 36 = D — 6pts.

In light of this predetermined system, it would seem
that the “study groups” accounted for nearly one-half
of a grade point differential.

cd

I plan to replicate this experiment. I also plan to
alter the variables slightly, by comparing Unit III to
Unit IV and Unit IV to Unit V. Study groups have
earned a place in my instructional strategies repertoire.

Kaye Young, Instructor, Psychology
For further information, contact the author at North

lowa Area Community College, 500 College Drive,
Mason City, IA 50401.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

March 10, 1989, Vol. XI, No. 9

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1969
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

 

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staf and Organizatonal Development (NISOD),

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscnptions are available to nonconsor-
tium members for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundation
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once dunng the summer. ISSN 0199-106.