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.