Students are rarely taught how to study. When strategy instruction occurs, weak strategies are often advocated or strategies are presented in a hodgepodge, leaving students without a systematic study plan. Students’ weak study strategies include recording sketchy notes, organizing ideas linearly, learning in a piecemeal fashion, and employing redundant strategies. SOAR is an integrated study plan that includes the components of Selection, Organization, Association, and Regulation. Each SOAR component targets one of the aforementioned weak study strategies commonly used by students. In this experiment, college students read a text about wildcats and then studied provided materials using their preferred study method, the integrated SOAR method, or parts of the SOAR method in preparation for fact and relationship tests. Results confirmed that for relationship learning, the integrated SOAR study method was superior to preferred study methods or using parts of the SOAR method. For fact learning, the combination of Selection and Organization proved best. Association and Regulation processes were ineffective, perhaps because of divided attention or cognitive load. Overall, SOAR showed promise as an integrated study system that is easy to learn, easy to use, and effective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AharonyN. (2006). The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 851–866.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
3.
AtkinsonR. C.RaughM. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 126–133.
4.
AtkinsonR. K.LevinJ. R.KiewraK. A.MeyersT.KimS.-I.AtkinsonL.HwangY. (1999). Matrix and mnemonic text-processing adjuncts: Comparing and combining their components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 342–357.
5.
BakerL.LombardiB. R. (1985). Students' lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.
6.
BauschA.BeckerK. (2001). A study of students' lack of study and organizational skills with middle school and high school students (Master's thesis). Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (No. ED455461)
7.
BiggsJ. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning-process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3–19.
8.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
BruningR.SchrawG. J.NorbyM.RonningR. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
ButlerT. H. (1983). Effect of subject and training variables on the SQ3R study method (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
11.
ClementJ.BrownD.CampC.KudekeyJ.MinstrellJ.PalmerD.VenemanV. (1987). Overcoming students' misconceptions in physics: The role of anchoring intuitions and analogical validity. In NovakJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 84–97). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CollingwoodV.HughesD. C. (1978). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 175–179.
14.
CraikF. I. M.WatkinsM. J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 598–607.
15.
DurkinD. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–538.
16.
EllisD. (1997). Becoming a master student. St. Charles, IL: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
FeldmanR. (2007). Power learning. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
18.
FeldtT.ByrneK.BralC. (1996). Use of guided design to facilitate strategic reading. Reading Improvement, 33, 136–142.
19.
FlippoR. F.CaverlyD. C. (2000). Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
FraseL. T.SchwartzB. J. (1975). Effect of question production and answering on prose recall. Journal of Education Psychology, 67, 628–635.
21.
GettingerM.SeibertJ. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychology Review, 31, 350–366.
22.
GirdenE. R. (1992). ANOVA: Repeated measures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
GubbelsP. S. (1999). College student studying: A collected case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of NebraskaLincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska.
24.
HarwellM. (1988). Univariate and multivariate tests: ANOVA versus MANOVA. Educational Research Quarterly, 12(3), 20–28.
25.
HidiS.AndersonV. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 86, 473–493.
26.
HoweM. J. (1970). Using students' notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 61–63.
27.
JairamD. (2009). Helping students SOAR to success on their computer: A mixed methods approach for testing an integrated study strategies system during computer-based learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
28.
JamesM. (2006). Teaching to the test denies kids independent learning skills. Education, 233, 2.
29.
JonassenD. H.BeissnerK.YacciM. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
KauffmanD. F.KiewraK. A. (in press). What makes a matrix so effective: An empirical test of the relevant benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Journal of Insitutional Science.
31.
KiewraK. A. (1983). The relationship between notetaking over an extended period and actual course-related achievement. College Student Journal, 17, 381–385.
32.
KiewraK. A. (1984a). Acquiring effective notetaking skills: An alternative to professional notetaking. Journal of Reading, 27, 299–302.
33.
KiewraK. A. (1984b). Implications for note taking based on relationships between note taking variables and achievement measures. Reading Improvement, 21, 145–149.
34.
KiewraK. A. (1985a). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
35.
KiewraK. A. (1985b). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, and attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73–77.
36.
KiewraK. A. (1985c). Providing the instructor's notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20, 33–39.
37.
KiewraK. A. (1985d). Students' note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.
38.
KiewraK. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Journal of Instructional Science, 16, 233–249.
39.
KiewraK. A. (1988). Cognitive aspects of autonomous note taking: Control processes, learning strategies, and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 23, 39–56.
40.
KiewraK. A. (1989). Matrix notes. Educational Technology, 29, 55–56.
41.
KiewraK. A. (1991). Aids to lecture learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 37–54.
42.
KiewraK. A. (1994). The matrix representation system: Orientation, research, theory and application. In SmartJ. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 115–153). New York, NY: Agathon.
43.
KiewraK. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory Into Practice, 41, 71–80.
44.
KiewraK. A. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
45.
KiewraK. A. (2009). Teaching how to learn: The teacher's guide to student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
46.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33–44.
47.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L.LewisL. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14, 110–117.
48.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristianD.McShaneA.MeyerhofferM.RoskelleyD. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245.
49.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristensenM.KimS.LindbergN. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Journal of Instructional Science, 18, 217–232.
50.
KiewraK. A.KauffmanD. F.RobinsonD.DuBoisN.StaleyR. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Journal of Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.
51.
KimberlinC.WintersteinA. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 65, 2276–2284.
52.
KingA. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students' comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 1–16.
53.
KingA. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
54.
KingA. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.
55.
LynchD. J. (2007). I've studied so hard for this course, but don't get it! Differences between student and faculty perceptions. College Student Journal, 41, 22–24.
56.
MayerR. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.
57.
MayerR. E. (1996a). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151–161.
58.
MayerR. E. (1996b). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI system of guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371.
59.
MayerR. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.
60.
MayerR. E. (2008). Old advice for new researchers. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 41–56.
61.
McCormickS.CooperJ. O. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled students' literal comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. Reading Psychology, 12, 239–271.
62.
MorganC. H.LilleyJ. D.BorehamN. C. (1988). Learning from lectures: The effect of varying the detail in lecture handouts on note-taking and recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 115–122.
63.
NipleM. (1968). The relationship of different study methods to immediate and delayed comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
64.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
65.
PallantJ. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
66.
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, 291–300.
67.
PressleyM.YokoiL.Van MeterP.Van EttenM.FreebernG. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier?Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.
68.
RachalK. C.DaigleS.RachalW. S. (2007). Learning problems reported by college students: Are they using learning strategies?Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 191–199.
69.
RobinsonD.KiewraK. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.
70.
RobinsonF. P. (1941). Diagnostic and remedial techniques for effective study. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
71.
RobinsonF. P. (1946). Effective study (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
72.
SaenzV.BarreraD. S. (2007). Findings from the 2005 college student survey (CSS): National aggregates. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.
73.
ScappaticciE. T. (1977). A study of SQ3R and select and recite reading and study skills methods in college classes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
74.
SergeantJ. (1996). A theory of attention: An information processing perspective. In LyonG. R.KrasnegorN. A. (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 57–69). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
75.
SmithM. C. (1996). Studies in pharmaceutical economics. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
76.
SporM.SchneiderB. (1999). Content reading strategies: What teachers know, use, and want to learn. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 221–231.
77.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
78.
SwellerJ. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
79.
Van MeterP.YokoiL.PressleyM. (1994). College students' theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.
80.
WillmoreD. J. (1966). A comparison of four methods of studying a college textbook (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
81.
WittrockM. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
82.
ZimmermanB. J.BonnerS.KovachR. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
