One hundred sixty students in an educational psychology course used WebCT Discussions to satisfy one of two study group conditions, reciprocal peer questioning or mnemonic devices. Students made postings according to their assigned study strategy in order to facilitate the learning of their group. At the end of the academic term, student permission was obtained to use three types of data for purposes of the investigation: 1) course grades; 2) WebCT records; and 3) rating scale responses that assessed personal evaluation of the virtual study groups. There were no differences between the two study conditions in terms of academic achievement. However, students in the reciprocal peer questioning condition made more postings and read more articles than students in the mnemonics group. Correspondingly, students in the reciprocal peer questioning group reported higher levels of satisfaction with the virtual study experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgnewN. C.SlateJ. R.JonesC. H., & AgnewD. M. (1993). Academic behaviors as a function of academic achievement, locus of control, and motivation orientation. NACTA Journal, 37, 24–27.
2.
BaileyP. D., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2002). The role of study habits in foreign language courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 463–473.
3.
BloomB. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.New York: McKay.
4.
CamposA.GonzalezM. A., & AmorA. (2003). Limitations of mnemonic-keyword method. Journal of General Psychology, 130, 399–414.
5.
CarneyR. N., & LevinJ. R. (2003). Promoting higher-order learning benefits by building lower-order mnemonic connections. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 563–575.
6.
CrookC. (2001). The campus experience of networked learning. In SteeplesC. & JonesC. (Eds.), Networked learning (pp. 293–308). London: Springer-Verlag.
7.
CrookC. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs. computer-based notes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 64–76.
8.
DemboM. H. (2004). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A self-management approach.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
FooteC. J. (1998). Student-generated higher order questioning as a study strategy. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107–113.
10.
GrabeM., & SiglerE. (2002). Studying online: Evaluation of an online study environment. Computers and Education, 38, 375–383.
11.
GrunebergM., & SykesR. (1996). The use of mnemonic strategies in the learning of non Roman foreign language alphabets. Language Learning Journal, 13, 82–83.
12.
JohnsonG. M. (2005). Student alienation, academic achievement, and WebCT use. Educational Technology and Society, 8, 179–189.
13.
JonesC. H.SlateJ. R., & KyleA. (1992). Study skills of teach education students. Teacher Education, 28, 7–15.
KingA. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college student's comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 1–16.
16.
KingA. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.
17.
KingA. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
KingA. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41, 30–36.
20.
KingA. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41, 34–41.
21.
LipsonM. (1994). Effects of a mnemonic imagery strategy on the prose recall of developmental and nondevelopmental college readers. Reading Improvement, 31, 9–13.
22.
LongW. F. (2003). Dissonance detected by cluster analysis of responses to the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 21–35.
23.
LouY.AbramiP. C., & d'ApolloniaS. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.
24.
LucaJ., & ClarksonB. (2002, June). Promoting students learning through peer tutoring—A case study. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477058)
25.
McWhorterK. T. (2004). College reading and study skills (9th ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman.
26.
MillerM. T., & LuM. Y. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Education Media International, 40, 163–169.
27.
PolanskyJ.HoranJ. J., & HanishC. (1993). Experimental construct validity of the outcomes of study skills training and career counseling as a treatment for the retention of at-risk students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 488–492.
28.
PresteraG. E., & MollerL. A. (2001, April). Facilitating asynchronous distance learning: Exploiting opportunities for knowledge building in asynchronous distance environments. Paper presented at the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463723)
29.
RosenshineB.MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
30.
RummelN.LevinJ. R., & WoodwardM. M. (2003). Do pictorial mnemonic text-learning aids give students something worth writing about?Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 327–334.
31.
SabaF. (1999). Helping students learn online: Learning how to learn. Distance Education Report, 3, 1.
32.
ShaleD. (2002). The hybridisation of higher education in Canada. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2. Retrieved November 21, 2004 fromn http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.2/shale.html
33.
SlateJ. R.JonesC. H., & HarlanE. J. (1998). Study skills of students at a post-secondary vocational-technical institute. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35, 57–70.
34.
SpringerL.StanneM. E., & DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
35.
StephensJ. A., & DwyerF. M. (1997). Effect of varied mnemonics strategies in facilitating student achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24, 75–89.
36.
TaitA., & MillsR. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
37.
TrentinG. (1997). Logical communication structures for network-based education and teleteaching. Educational Technology, 37, 19–25.
38.
TuckmanB. W. (2003, August). The strategies-for-achievement approach for teaching study skills. Paper presented at the Annual Conferences of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, ON. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480096)
39.
van HellJ. G., and MahnA. C. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learners. Language Learning, 47, 507–546.
40.
WangA. Y., & ThomasM. H. (1995). Effects of keywords on long-term retention: Help or hindrance?Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 468–475.
41.
WangA. Y., & ThomasM. H. (1996). Mnemonic instruction and gifted children. Roeper Review, 19, 104–105.
42.
WaughR. F. (2003). Measuring attitudes and behaviors to studying and learning for university students: A Rasch measurement model analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 164–180.
43.
WebCT Inc. (2005). WebCT: Learning without limits. Retrieved February 1, 2005 from http://www.webct.com/
