The Better Grades

Flipped open the most recent issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science today. The first study grabbed my attention: it's about factors related to students getting higher grades. Does it have your attention now, too?

This study was a meta-analysis, which is an analysis of previously published studies. This means it's probably going to give a pretty accurate big picture on academic performance. It's obvious that a good predictor of how you're going to do in a given course is how well you've done in previous courses. Unfortunately, but it's a bit of a circular argument. (Why did you perform at the level you did in the previous course? Because of how you did in the previous course, etc.) So this study helps break out of that circle.

This study found three factors that are really important contributing factors. First, study motivation was found to be a reliable predictor of GPA. Translation: the more enthused you are about a course, the better you're likely to do. OK, so how do you do that? Choose your courses carefully, and take courses that you want to take, as much as possible. If you're in law school and hating every second of it, how much fun is it going to be when you're a lawyer? (Granted, there are also external or "extrinsic" motivators. Getting filthy rich is an extrinsic motivator for some people. Hmph.)

Study skills include your time management skills, your ability to handle demands, and your capability to organize, summarize, and integrate material. If all you do is memorize stuff, your study skills could use an upgrade. Can you see the big-picture, or patterns in the things you're trying to learn? Study skills also had strong relationships with GPA and individual class grades. (Didja know you can get help with this?)

Next, study habits were also found to be predictive of performance. This includes having discipline in how you study: how often, whether your review, and even your choice of an environment that's conducive to studying (i.e., iPod turned off, no TV or computer, no other distractions).

Lastly, I wanted to mention that having study anxiety was a negative predictor of performance; that is, if studying or writing an exam freaks you out, you're less likely to do well. (Didja know you can get help with this, too?)

Here's the reference for this study:
Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425-453.

Why aren't you studying?

The Fuzzy Trace Theory

When students come to see me after after doing badly on an exam, I ask, "Did you feel you were familiar with the material?" The response is usually, "Yeah, I thought I knew it." (Students who bomb an exam they didn't study for don't come to me for advice on what went wrong ;-)
So the student clearly studied--what happened?

The answer must lie in either the quantity or quality of studying. Let's start with quantity: the more you study, the better you'll tend to do. But there are only so many hours in a day. You have a bunch of courses to study for, you want to have some downtime, you want to sleep. Telling students to just spend more time studying is disingenuous.

What if you could study better?

Fuzzy trace theory (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002 [pdf]) was originally about the development of children's memory, but it can also be applied to adults. It says there are two parallel memory representations formed in your mind:

• verbatim traces: remembering things exactly, word-for-word, and
• gist traces: remembering the general meaning of things

For example, if you hear the word spaniel, a verbatim trace would consist of actually remembering the word "spaniel"; a gist trace would be things that you know about spaniels (e.g., spaniels are hunting dogs, with long coats and drop ears). So, generally, verbatim memories are more specific than gist memories.

What does this have to do with studying? If you study, say, the definition of "structuralism" so that you form a verbatim memory, you will be able to write down the complete definition. However, a gist memory of "structuralism" would be more vague, like "something about consciousness," "an approach in psychology," or even "a word from my psych class." Which of these two memories would you prefer to have during an exam?

If you're studying for an essay/long-answer exam, you will work to form verbatim traces so you can put down the actual definition. You may use flashcards, or even practice writing the definitions of important terms and concepts.

When it comes to multiple-choice exams, however, there's a tendency to be more complacent: "The answer will be right in front of me, all I have to do is recognize it." Unfortunately, multiple-choice exams tend not to have gist questions like this:

1. Do you recognize this word from the textbook: structuralism?
a) yes
b) no

Instead, questions are designed to test your verbatim traces:

1. What is the fundamental basis of structuralism?
a) Analyzing abnormal conscious processes to treat clients.
b) Focusing on observable behaviours, and how they are modified by the environment.
c) Decomposing conscious processes into basic elements.
d) Studying the purpose of certain mental processes.

Forming verbatim traces requires more intensive study. That means making your own notes as you read the chapters, and using aids like flashcards. Now you've got a conceptual understanding of why familiarity with material is not as good as actually, thoroughly knowing it. (By the way, the answer is "c." UWO has some resources about "when in doubt, pick c" under Relying on Myths and Misconceptions on their Writing Multiple Choice Tests page.)

Why aren't you studying?

Reference: Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 164-169.