Most students rely on ineffective study habits to learn material instead of using evidence-based strategies known to improve learning.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a novel in-class quizzing strategy (i.e., Make & Take Quizzes) that was intentionally designed to engage students in evidence-based study strategies.
Method:
Final exam grades between sections of identical courses where students completed (N = 74) or did not complete (N = 73) Make & Take Quizzes were compared. Changes in the use of study strategies from the beginning to the end of the semester in two courses where students completed the quizzes were also examined.
Results:
Students in Make & Take Quiz sections significantly outperformed those in sections without the quizzes. Students’ overall strategies for studying did not significantly change; however, there were significant improvements in the specific strategies of deciding on the main ideas when studying and putting ideas into one’s own words when studying.
Conclusion:
Make & Take Quizzes appear to help students learn course material, while also engaging them in the use of specific study strategies.
Teaching Implications:
An easy-to-implement strategy, instructors can engage students in the effective use of evidence-based study strategies by incorporating Make & Take Quizzes in their courses.
CepedaN. J.PashlerH.VulE.WixtedJ. T.RohrerD. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
4.
ChewS. L. (2005). Seldom in doubt but often wrong: Addressing tenacious student misconceptions. In DunnD. S.ChewS. L. (Eds.), Best practices for teaching introduction to psychology (pp. 211–223). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
ChoK. W.PowersA. (2019). Testing enhances both memorization and conceptual learning of categorical materials. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.01.003
DelaneyP. F.VerkoeijenP. P. J. L.SpirgelA. (2010). Spacing and the testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2
8.
DunloskyJ. (2013). Strengthening the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37(3), 12–21.
9.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A.MarshE. J.NathanM. J.WillinghamD. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
10.
EbbinghausH. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger, C. E. Bussenius, & E. R. Hilgard, Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885)
11.
GellerJ.ToftnessA. R.ArmstrongP. I.CarpenterS. K.ManzC. L.CoffmanC. R.LammM. H. (2018). Study strategies and beliefs about learning as a function of academic achievement and achievement goals. Memory, 26(5), 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1397175
12.
KelleyM. R.Chapman-OrrE. K.CalkinsS.LemkeR. J. (2019). Generation and retrieval practice effects in the classroom using Peer Wise. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319834174
13.
LloydE. P.WalkerR. J.MetzM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Comparing review strategies in the classroom: Self-testing yields more favorable student outcomes relative to question generation. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762871
14.
McCabeJ. A. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory and Cognition, 39(3), 462–476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2
15.
PintrichP. R.De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
16.
PressleyM.McDanielM. A.TurnureJ. E.WoodE.AhmadM. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291
17.
PutnamA. L.SungkhasetteeV. W.RoedigerH. L. (2016). Optimizing learning in college: Tips from cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616645770
18.
RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ.SciartelliS. M. (2013). The power of successive relearning: Improving performance on course exams and long-term retention. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9240-4
RoedigerH. L.KarpickeJ. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
21.
RoedigerH. L.PutnamA. L.SmithM. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In MestreJ.RossB. (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 1–36). Elsevier.
22.
SlameckaN. M.GrafP. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
23.
SoderstromN. C.BjorkR. A. (2014). Testing facilitates the regulation of subsequent study time. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.003
24.
Van BlerkomD. L.Van BlerkomM. L.BertschS. (2006). Study strategies and generative learning: What works?Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2006.10850190
25.
ZamaryA.RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.002
