STUDY BEHAVIOR OF NURSING STUDENTS
Lori Doll-Speck
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2007
Committee:
Michael Coomes, Advisor
Leigh Chiarelott
Kathleen Dixon
Graduate Faculty Representative
William Knight
Maureen E. Wilson
© 2007
Lori Doll-Speck
All Right Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
Michael Coomes, Advisor
The purpose of this research was to learn about nursing students’ study behavior, so
that nursing educators can assist students with the development of study habits,
attitudes, and strategies. A sample of Bachelor of Science in Nursing programs
accredited by NLNAC was used. Multiple regression was used to analyze whether the
independent variables (age, gender, race, high school grade point average, total study
score, self-regulated learning score, study and work time, college classification, and
enrollment status) predicted the dependent variables (nursing and college grade point
average). ANOVA was also used. Two conceptual frameworks, Astin’s InputsEnvironment-Outputs Model and self-regulated learning, informed the research. The
independent variables were predictors of college and nursing GPA. Study behaviors
associated with higher college and nursing GPA including quiet study, effort, having a
specific time to study, time management, studying until completion, memorizing,
keeping track of progress, and prioritization. The findings of this research have several
implications. First, students may need counseling on how to balance studying and work.
Second, nursing students need to be advised that both study time and study score are
predictors of academic success. Third, behaviors associated with higher college and
nursing GPA should be encouraged in nursing students. Nursing students can improve
their chances of earning good grades by developing good study strategies and through
effective self-regulated learning techniques.
iv
To my parents
Who loved and encouraged me, and
To Terry, Lucas and Stephanie,
Libbe and Josh,
Lacey, and
Jacob for loving me and
believing in me.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Michael Coomes
As my dissertation chair, you provided much advice, guidance, support, and feedback.
No matter how frustrated I was, you encouraged me to continue. I consider you a friend,
colleague, and mentor.
Dr. Leigh Chiarelott
Dr. William Knight
Dr. Maureen E. Wilson
Dr. Kathleen Dixon
As my dissertation committee, you provided assistance and on-going encouragement
throughout the dissertation-writing process. A special thank you to Dr. Knight for his
help with my pilot study, my questionnaire, and for your expertise with statistics. Also, a
special thank you to Dr. Wilson for your editing expertise.
Susan Sochacki
Cindy Robert
As my closest colleagues through the process, you provided continual support and
encouragement, and laughter and love.
Higher Education Administration Program and
Sigma Theta Tau Zeta Theta Chapter
Thank you for your monetary support in mailing my questionnaire. These were very
expensive to mail, and without your support, this would have been very costly to me.
vi
Nursing Program Administrators
You took time out of your administrative duties to distribute my questionnaire to your
nursing students and thus made my research possible.
Research participants
You took time out of your busy nursing program to complete my lengthy questionnaire.
My dissertation would not have become a reality without your time commitment.
God
You gave me the passionate love of learning, research, and of my nursing students, and
you blessed me with wisdom and perseverance to complete this dissertation. Praise to
you, Oh God.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……..……………………………………………..........
1
The Research Problem ……………………………………………………….…........
1
The Research Questions……………………………………………………….........
4
Subsidiary Questions…………………………………………………………….. ….
4
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………. ….
4
Delimitations ……………………………………………………………………...........
5
Anticipated Limitations………………..………………………………………..... .....
7
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………...........
8
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..………………………………………........
10
I-E-O Model……………………………………………………………………………
10
Self-regulated learning.……………………………………………….………….......
14
Study Habits...…………………………………………………………………....... …
18
Study Attitudes …………………………………………………………………..... …
28
Study Strategies ……………………………………………………………….. .... …
30
Study behavior of nursing students ………………………………………….. ……
48
Summary of Literature Review ………………………………………………...... …
51
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY..…………………………………………………… ....
60
Sampling ………………………………………………………………………....... …
55
Data Collection …………………………………………………………………. ……
56
Reliability…………………………………………………………………………… ....
59
Statistical Procedures ……………………………………………………………… .
59
viii
Data Cleaning…………………………………………………………………………
61
Conceptual Frameworks……………………………………………………………… 62
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS..……………………………………………………………… ..
63
Sample Characteristics..…………………………………………………………… ..
64
Research Question One: Study Time………………………………………………
70
Study score.…………..……………………………………………………………… .
71
Self-regulated Learning Score..…………………………………………………… ..
71
Research Question Two: Study Behavior..……………………………………… ...
72
Study habits..……………………………………………………………………....
77
Study Strategies……………………………………………….…………………..
78
Study Attitudes.………………………………………………………………… ....
81
Research Question Three: Relationship between Study Behavior and
Academic Achievement.………………………………………………………… .
83
Research Question Four: Differences in Study Behavior.……………………… ..
84
Study Behaviors and College GPA………………………………………………….
96
Study Behaviors and Race.………………………………………………………… . 100
Study Behaviors and Enrollment Status.…………………………………………... 100
Study Behaviors and College Classification.……………………………………… 103
Study Behaviors and Work Time.………………………………………………… ... 103
Study Behaviors and Study Time………………………………………………… ... 104
Study Behaviors and Gender.……………………………………………………… . 107
Study Behaviors and Nursing GPA.……………………………………………… ... 107
Research Question Five: Academic Achievement.…………………….……… .... 130
ix
Research Question Six: Work Time.…………………………………….………… . 147
Summary of Results………………………………………………………………….. 149
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………….. 154
Sample Characteristics………………………………………………………………. 154
College and Nursing GPA.……………………………………………………… . 154
Study Time…………………………………………………….…………………... 156
Work Time.…………………………………………………….……………… ...... 157
Self-regulated Learning…………………………………………….…………… . 157
Study Score.………...……………………………………………….…………… . 162
Study Behavior and College GPA.…………………………………….…………… 161
Study Behavior and Race.…………………………………………….…………… .. 162
Study Behavior and Enrollment Status.……………………………….…………… 163
Study Behavior and College Classification.………………………….…………… . 163
Study Behavior and Work Time.……………………………………….………….... 164
Study Behavior and Study Time..…………………………………….…………...... 165
Study Behavior and Gender..……………………………………….……………… . 172
Study Behavior and Nursing GPA..………………………………………………… 173
Consistency with Literature Review..……………………………………………… . 178
Study Time………………………………………………………………………… 178
Gender..…………………………………………………..……………………… .. 179
Study Behavior..……………………………………………………..……………. 180
Age..…………………………………………………………..………………… .... 189
Course Grades, GPA, and Academic Performance..………………..……… .. 190
x
Work Time..……………………………………………………………..……….... 190
Enrollment Status...………………………………………………………………. 191
Predictors of College GPA and Nursing GPA………………………………… . 191
Discussion Summary...………………………………………………………. …… .. 192
Implications for Practice...………………………………………………………….... 194
Strengths...…………………………………………………………………………..... 196
Limitations...………………………………………………………………………… ... 197
Recommendations for Future Research...………………………………………… 200
Conclusion...………………………………………………………………………… .. 203
REFERENCES...…………………………………………………………………. …… .. 204
APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT....…………………………………………… . 214
APPENDIX B. PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONS……………………………… ... 222
APPENDIX C. COVER LETTERS....……………………………………………… .. … 224
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Participant Demographic Characteristics………….…………………………
65
2
Participant Academic Characteristics………….……………………………..
66
3
Participant Time Commitments………….…………………………………… .
67
4
Participant Academic Characteristics………….……………………………..
69
5
Self-regulated Learning Questions with Highest Frequency
of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses ………………………….......... .
6
Self-regulated Learning Questions with Lowest Frequency
of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses.……………………….…..…….
7
13
80
Study Attitudes with Highest Frequency of Agree and
Somewhat Agree Responses.……………………………………..…............
12
79
Study Strategies with Lowest Frequency of Agree and
Somewhat Agree Responses.………………………………………..………..
11
78
Study Strategies with Highest Frequency of Agree and
Somewhat Agree Responses.………………………………………..………..
10
77
Study Habits with Lowest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat
Agree Responses.………………………………………………….….……. ....
9
76
Study Habits with Highest Frequency of Agree
and Somewhat Agree Responses ………………………………….…..…….
8
73
81
Study Attitudes with Lowest Frequency of Agree and
Somewhat Agree Responses.…………………………………………...........
82
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Time……………………............
86
xii
14
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
Variable of Study Time……………………………………………………… ....
88
15
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Score…………………………..
91
16
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
Variable of Study Score……………….………………………………………… 94
17
Study Behaviors associated with College GPA……………...……………...
97
18
Study Behaviors associated with Race……………..………………........….. 101
19
Study Behaviors associated with Enrollment Status……………..……........ 102
20
Study Behaviors associated with College
Classification……………..…………………………………………………… ... 103
21
Study Behaviors associated with Work Time……………..……………… .... 105
22
Study Behaviors associated with Study Time……………...……………… .. 108
23
Study Behaviors associated with Gender……………..…………………… .. 116
24
Study Behaviors associated with Nursing GPA……………..………………. 118
25
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Regulated
Learning……………..………………………………………………………… ... 124
26
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
Variable of Self-Regulated Learning……………..…………………….…… .. 127
27
Means and Standard Deviations for College GPA……………...………… .. 133
28
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
Variable of College GPA……………..………………………………………. .. 136
29
Means and Standard Deviations for Nursing GPA……………..………… ... 139
30
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
xiii
Variable of Nursing GPA……………...………………………………............. 142
31
Means and Standard Deviations for Work Time ......................................... 145
32
Summary of One-way ANOVA using the Dependent
Variable of Work Time..…………………………………………………… .. … 148
33
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors
Compared to Work Time ............................................................................ 166
34
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors
Compared to Study Time ........................................................................... 167
35
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors
Compared to Nursing GPA........................................................................ 174
36
Percentage of Appropriate Study Behaviors on
Study Tool.…………………………………………………………………....... 180
37
Common Study Strengths found by Researchers……………….……… ..... 182
38
Common Study Weaknesses found by
Researchers………………..………………………………………. ................. 184
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
..................... Page
1
I-E-O Model……...............................................................................................
11
2
Conceptual Model ............................................................................................
12
3
Self-Regulated Learning Model ........................................................................
15
4
Revised I-E-O Conceptual Model ………………………………………………....
64
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The Research Problem
Since the 1970s many researchers have examined how college students study and
have explored factors that correlate with more effective study approaches. Many
questions have been asked including: “How much time do students believe they should
study?”, “How much time do they actually study?,” “How much time studying outside
class should be expected of a typical student?,” “Do today’s college students know how
to study?,” and “Is there a relationship between various study strategies and classroom
achievement?” It is generally believed by faculty and students alike that the more
students study, the higher their grades will be. It is also believed that study strategies
enhance academic achievement. Another belief is that college students’ study activities
need improvement. It is also relatively clear that studying is individualistic in that, to
some extent, each student studies differently. Studying is a very complex process and
thus researchers are presented with the problem of what competencies, skills, attitudes,
and other factors to measure. There are a number of instruments that are marketed as
study measurement tools, e.g. Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) and Survey
of Study Habits and Attitudes (Brown & Holtzman, 1956). The study habits, attitudes,
and strategies of various types of students including four-year college and university,
community, vocational, and technical students as well as students of varying majors
including business, education, and science have been researched. Most or all of these
studies have been at single institutions and fairly limited in scope. However, very few
studies have been conducted of nursing students’ study behaviors.
2
Issues of retention and attrition of nursing students and the nursing shortage make
this research very relevant. Nursing programs are known to be difficult since several
science, math, and nursing courses are required of the students. Added to this is the
rising cost of postsecondary education which may force many nursing students to work
in addition to attending school. Also, many nursing students are nontraditional students
with family responsibilities. Attrition rates are often high as nursing students struggle
with a difficult curriculum and outside pressures (Glossop, 2002).
The nursing shortage adds urgency to the issue of retaining nursing students. There
are currently 300,000 nursing students in the U.S., yet there remain over 126,000
nursing positions open in hospitals. Further, the nursing shortage is even more critical in
long-term care organizations (such as nursing homes) and home-health care agencies
(NLN, n.d.). Considering the current nursing shortage, it would behoove nurse
educators to retain nursing students. Retaining nursing students may begin with
research such as this that addresses study behavior of students. As study behavior is
researched, it may become more readily apparent how to assist nursing students to be
successful in a very difficult program. As educators learn more about nursing students’
study behavior, they may be able to assist them with the development of effective study
habits, attitudes, and strategies. If projected shortages in nursing professionals are to
be reduced or eliminated, colleges of nursing must increase not only their enrollments,
but also their retention rates. Research endeavors that address retention efforts
directed at learning about and improving students’ academic skills, as well as efforts to
increase the extent to which they attribute successful outcomes to their own behavior,
3
should improve students’ academic achievement. Such increases in achievement can
be expected to have a positive effect on retention rates.
Theory and research on self-regulated academic learning emerged in the mid-1980s
to address the question of how students control their own learning behaviors. Several
authors (Wilhite, 1990, Zimmerman, 1990, Kitsantas, 2002) have linked self-regulated
learning to student academic outcomes in classroom settings. It is assumed that
students can regulate their cognition, motivation, and behavior and through this
regulation, they can achieve their goals and perform better (Pintrich, 1995). Questions
have been asked about students’ knowledge of the various self-regulated strategies;
knowledge about how, when, and why to use these strategies; the effects of these
strategies on academic outcomes; and what key processes self-regulated students use
to meet their academic outcomes.
It also is assumed that all students can learn to be self-regulating, no matter what
their age, gender, race, ability level, prior knowledge, or motivation. Faculty can help
students learn to be self-regulated learners (Pintrich, 1995). If students can learn to
regulate their study time and learning, they may better adapt to the academic demands
of the college classroom and may better balance those demands with the social
demands of college life.
Very little research has been done on nursing students’ ability to self-regulate their
learning. There is still much to be learned about what self-regulated learners do, about
how students learn to become self-regulated learners, and about how faculty can help
students develop into self-regulated learners. Research on self-regulation and study
behavior of nursing students has the potential to shape the discussion of teaching and
4
learning in the larger picture of higher education and the smaller picture of nursing
education, and to influence the instructional climate for all higher education students.
The Research Questions
What is the study behavior (including habits, attitudes, and strategies) of nursing
students? How much time do nursing students spend studying?
Subsidiary Questions
1. What variables explain the relationship between study behavior and academic
achievement of nursing students?
2. Are there significant differences in study behavior between nursing students
who differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement?
3. Are there significant differences in college academic achievement between
nursing students who differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high
school achievement?
Definition of Terms
College Grade Point Average (College GPA) - participants self-report of their
cummulative college grade point average is up to now (on a 0-4 point scale).
Nursing Courses Grade Point Average (Nursing Courses GPA) - participant’s selfreport of their cumulative nursing course grades .
Self-regulated learning - the active, goal-directed, self-control of behavior,
motivation, and cognition for academic tasks by an individual student.
Study behavior - the fundamental variable under examination; the sum of all study
actions a student engages in, including study habits, attitudes, and strategies.
5
Study attitudes - ways of acting or behaving that show what a student is thinking or
feeling about studying, including but not limited to prioritization of studying, importance
of studying, confidence, satisfaction, usefulness of course material, mood, excitement
about academic topics, motivation to study, interest in course, worrying about success,
and belief in ability to succeed.
Study habits - study practices that students engages in, including but not limited to
number of hours they study per week, time of day they study, places they typically
study, organization, time management, effort, planning, procrastination, and
concentration.
Study strategy - various skills, learning methods, and study tactics that students
engage in to achieve their short-term goals and overall goals for studying. Examples
include but are not limited to: structuring content (making an outline of content),
selecting (highlighting), making deeper links (making concept maps), planning (setting
objectives for oneself), rehearsing (rehearsing information), collaborating (assisting
peers), note taking, relaxation techniques, using a study guide, and memorizing course
content.
Delimitations
In order to narrow the scope of the study, the researcher imposed the following
restrictions:
Even though student study behavior may change through their college experience,
data was collected over the course of only one semester. This was a cross-sectional
study, not a longitudinal one. “A cross-sectional survey collects data across different
segments of the population at a particular time. It shows the status of those segments
6
but cannot clearly depict changes that might be occurring” (Charles & Mertler, 2002, p.
162).
Only U.S. colleges and universities were researched. No international institutions
were included in the study. Nursing programs and courses in other countries may be
substantially different and thus this research may not be generalizable to those settings.
Only nursing students’ study behavior was studied. Students in any other college
majors were excluded.
Only Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students were researched. No Associate
Degree in Nursing (ADN), diploma (hospital-based, three-year program), or graduate
nursing students were researched. Students’ study behavior is potentially very different
in an ADN or a diploma program since the curricula in each program is very different.
Since all the students are taking the same licensing examination at the end of any
registered nurse program, an approximately equal numbers of nursing courses are
required in all programs. For example, most or all programs would have adult, pediatric,
and maternal/newborn nursing courses. Yet, all of these nursing courses are completed
in only two years in an ADN program, and three years in a diploma program, as
opposed to four years in the BSN programs. Thus, the ADN and diploma students have
less time to learn the nursing content, which could affect their study behavior. However,
the number of science and general education courses is fewer in the ADN and diploma
programs. And obviously, graduate programs’ curricula are very different in scope and
thus students in graduate programs may use different study behavior than
undergraduates.
7
Anticipated Limitations
Prior to beginning the research, the researcher identified existing constraints or
natural conditions that limited the study or restricted the scope of the study and may
have affected its outcomes These included:
There is always the danger that students’ self-reports may be inaccurate. Selfreports always raise the issue of the authenticity or validity of the data. To what extent
can the researcher believe that students accurately reported their study behavior? Prior
researchers have examined this issue of validity and credibility of self-reports and found
that participants may not understand the questions that are asked on surveys or they
may intentionally be dishonest about their activities (NSSE, 2007). Participant selfreports may also be subject to the halo effect, “the possibility that students may slightly
inflate certain aspects of their behavior or performance, such as grades, and the level of
effort they put forth in certain activities” (NSSE, 2007, p. 2). Researchers of the NSSE
found that “self-reports are likely to be valid under five general conditions: 1) when the
information requested is known to the respondents; 2) the questions are phrased
clearly; 3) the questions refer to recent activities; 4) the respondents think the questions
merit a serious and thoughtful response; and 5) answering the questions does not
threaten, embarrass, or violate the privacy of the respondent or encourage the
respondent to respond in socially desirable ways” (NSSE, 2007, p. 2). For the current
research, it seemed that these five conditions were met. The participants should know
their H.S. GPA, college GPA, and nursing GPA. The study questionnaire was worded
clearly. The clarity of the wording was reviewed by those conducting the pilot study. The
items on the questionnaire refer to recent activities (for example, “About how many
8
hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week studying?”). Participants were informed in
the student cover letter that the researcher was completing a serious research and that
the outcomes of the research had the potential to change and improve teaching and
learning. There was the possibility that participants might be embarrassed by
responding to the GPA or study questions, but this was also discussed in the student
cover letter. The students were told in the letter that the questionnaire was anonymous
and were also told that if they felt any discomfort after filling out the questionnaire they
should see a counselor on their college campus. However, the possibility of inaccurate
reporting could not be entirely ruled out in the current research.
It was expected that the majority of nursing students would be female as is the trend
in the U.S. Even though some male students were included, this may limit the
generalizability of this study to male students.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed that:
1. Students self-reported college GPA accurately and honestly.
2. Students self-reported H.S. GPA accurately and honestly.
3. Students self-reported nursing course grades accurately and honestly.
4. Students completed the study questionnaire accurately and honestly.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the topic
and outlines the research questions. Chapter Two provides an in-depth review of the
guiding conceptual models and related research studies. Chapter Three describes the
methodology of data collection and analysis. Chapter Four presents an analysis of the
9
data in the context of the research questions. Chapter Five summarizes the research
and provides recommendations for policies and programs based on the results of the
research, as well as suggested avenues for additional research.
10
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature review is divided into several sections. First, each of the two
conceptual models (I-E-O model and self-regulated learning) is discussed. Then
research found on study behavior including (a) study habits, (b) study attitudes, (c)
study strategies is discussed. The last section covers three studies found on nursing
students’ study behavior.
I-E-O Model
One of the conceptual frameworks used for the study was Astin’s InputsEnvironment-Outputs Model (I-E-O Model) (Astin, 2002). The I-E-O model provides a
simple but effective framework for research design. The model, developed from Astin’s
(2002) research has been used as a theoretical framework for research activities in
higher education for several years. The basic purpose of the design is to “correct or
adjust for input differences in order to get a less biased estimate of the comparative
effects of different environments on outputs” (p. 19). The model is applicable to social
and behavioral science, including education. When applying this model, researchers
should keep in mind that higher education is attempting to augment the education and
personal development of its students and faculty. Higher education faculty and
administrators are “particularly interested in learning about environmental experiences
that can be changed, since it is these experiences that offer the possibility of improving
outcomes in the future” (p. 22). Most of the problems that Astin researched were
quantitative in nature. For this research, the particular interest is the study behavior of
nursing students (environment). If the input differences of nursing students (age,
11
gender, race/ethnicity, and high school GPA) are adjusted for, an estimate of the effects
of study behavior on academic performance of nursing students may be obtained.
Figure 1
Inputs/Environment/Outputs (I-E-O) Model
Inputs refer to those personal qualities the student brings initially to the educational
program. Examples would include age, gender, race or ethnicity, high school (H.S.)
GPA, ACT score, and marital status. Environment refers to the student’s actual
experiences during the education program. Examples include study habits (including
amount of time devoted to studying), attitudes, and strategies, type of institution,
employment status, and participation in a remedial program. Outcomes refer to the
talents developed in educational program. Examples include retention, course grades,
and GPA. The outcome variables are dependent variables, while environmental and
input variables become independent variables in research.
Taken together, student input and student outcome data are meant to represent
student development-changes in the student’s abilities, competence, knowledge,
values, aspiration, and self-concept that occur over time. Knowing what particular
environmental experiences each student has had helps us to understand why some
12
students develop differently from others. By plugging the variables of this research
study into the I-E-O model, the following diagram emerges.
Figure 2
I-E-O Conceptual Model
Astin (1977) began researching input, environment, and outcomes of college
students more than two decades ago. His basic research questions were “What is the
impact of college on students?” and “What is the value of college?” These questions
were also being asked by students, parents, public officials, and educators. Astin
looked at a wide range of cognitive and affective student outcomes; in fact, over eighty
different measures of attitudes, values, behaviors, achievements, career development,
and satisfaction were researched in 200,000 college students. Astin found that students
change in many ways after they enter college. These changes were affected by a
number of factors, including the student’s characteristics at the time of college entry
(input), the type of college attended (environment) and the extent of the student’s
involvement in the college environment. The results that pertain to study behavior of
college students are summarized as follows: students developed a more positive self-
13
image, and first-year students appeared to be less studious and to interact less with
instructors, but studiousness and interaction with faculty increased with time in college.
Although college attendance was associated with an increase in both academic
knowledge and competency across a variety of fields, students’ college grades and rate
of extracurricular achievement declined from those in high school. Students frequently
changed career plans after they enter college. The biggest dropout rates occurred
among students who initially planned careers in engineering, nursing, medicine,
science, and school teaching (Astin, 1977).
Although women earned higher grades than men in college, they were less likely to
persist and to enroll in graduate or professional school. Men were more likely to
implement initial plans to become a college teacher, doctor, or lawyer, whereas women
were more likely to implement plans to become a school teacher (Astin, 1977).
Highly able students were much more likely to get involved academically, to
participate in honors programs, to get high grades, to complete college, to graduate with
honors, and to go to graduate or professional school. Older students were more likely to
interact with faculty, to get involved academically, and to participate in honors programs.
Older students got better grades and were more likely to graduate with honors (Astin,
1977).
Students with high intellectual self-esteem were likely to become involved in honors
programs and get high grades, but they were less likely to study long hours or devote
considerable energy to academic pursuits (Astin, 1977).
Being heavily involved academically was associated with greater student satisfaction
with almost all aspects of the undergraduate institution. Academically involved students
14
were those who spent a good deal of time at and said they worked hard at their studies
(Astin, 1977).
Students who got high grades as undergraduates showed substantially greater
increases in intellectual self-esteem. Good grades strongly related to persistence in
college (Astin, 1977).
Self-regulated Learning
The second conceptual model used in the research was self-regulated learning.
According to Pintrich (1995), self-regulated learners are students who attempt to control
their performance, motivation and emotion, and ability to acquire knowledge. Selfregulated learners set a goal they are attempting to accomplish. This goal provides the
standard by which students can monitor and judge their own performance and then
make the appropriate modification. Self-regulated learning involves the active
management of resources students have such as their time, where they study, and their
use of other students and faculty. Self-regulation of motivation and affect involves
managing and changing
.g motivational beliefs to adapt to the demands of a course. In addition, students can
learn how to control their feelings (such as anxiety) in ways that help their learning. Selfregulation of cognition involves the management of various learning strategies, such as
deep processing strategies that result in better learning and academic achievement.
A feedback loop entails a process in which students monitor the effectiveness of
their learning strategies and react to this feedback in a variety of ways. For example, a
student using an environmental manipulation strategy (arranging a quiet study area for
completing school work at home) would involve an intervening behavioral sequence of
15
room-altering responses such as eliminating noise, ensuring adequate lighting, and
arranging a place to write. The continued use of this structured setting for learning
would depend on perceptions of its effectiveness in assisting learning. This would be
conveyed reciprocally through an environmental feedback loop (Zimmerman, 1989).
Figure 3
Self-Regulated Learning Model
Zimmerman (1990) offered one of the first definitions of self-regulated learners:
students who are “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in
their own learning” (p. 4). They think about learning, they are motivated to learn, and
their behavior reflects positive strategies that help them learn. These students
personally initiate and direct their own efforts to gain knowledge and skill instead of
relying on teachers, parents, or others. Zimmerman identified 15 self-regulated learning
strategies that students use (a) self-evaluation (student evaluations, such as checking
over their work), (b) organizing and transforming (student rearrangement of instructional
materials, such as outlining), (c) goal setting and planning (students’ setting of
educational goals and planning for sequencing, timing, and completing activities, (d)
seeking information (student efforts to secure information from sources such as the
16
library), (e) keeping records and monitoring (student efforts to record event or results
such as maintaining daily records of studying progress), (f) environmental structuring
(student efforts to select or arrange their physical setting such as arranging a quiet
study area or adequate lighting), (g) self-consequating (student arrangement or
imagination of rewards or punishment for success or failure), (h) Rehearsing and
memorizing (student efforts to memorize material), (i) seeking social assistance (student
efforts to solicit help from peers), (j) seeking social assistance (student efforts to solicit
help from teachers), (k) seeking social assistance (student efforts to solicit help from
adults), (l) reviewing records (reading notes to prepare for class or testing), (m)
reviewing records (reading tests to prepare for class or further testing), (n) reviewing
records (reading textbooks to prepare for class or testing), (o) other.
Zimmerman (1989) and Kitsantas (2002) discussed three sub-processes in selfregulation. In the first, self-observation, students’ systematically monitor their own
performance. This involves searching and selecting appropriate strategies to help them
accomplish their goals. The second process, self-judgment includes students setting a
goal and then comparing their performance with the goal. “Self-regulated learners selfevaluate more often, attribute poor performances to strategy deficiency rather than to
lack of ability, experience greater self-satisfaction, and make better adaptations than
poorly self-regulated individuals” (Kitsantas, 2002, p. 102). If the self-evaluation is
negative, self-regulated learners find more effective strategies, seek help from others,
and restructure their physical environment so that it is favorable to learning (Kitsantas,
2002). The final process, self-reaction is where students react to their own performance.
17
This sub-process involves making evaluative responses to judgments of one’s
performance.
Zimmerman (1989) and Kitsantas (2002) also discussed self-efficacy as being
related to self-regulation. Students who have self-efficacy are more likely to set lofty
goals, self-monitor accurately, self-evaluate their goals, have better quality learning
strategies, and persist when facing difficulties than those who self-doubt their abilities.
Zimmerman (1990) described self-regulated learners as students who
approach educational tasks with confidence, diligence, and resourcefulness…
are aware when they know a fact or possess a skill and when they do
not...seek out information when needed and take the necessary steps to
master it. When they encounter obstacles such as poor study conditions,
confusing teachers, or abstruse text books, they find a way to succeed. Selfregulated learners view acquisition as a systematic and controllable process,
and accept greater responsibility for achievement outcomes (p. 4).
Wilhite (1990) explored the relationship between self-efficacy, study behavior, and
academic course achievement. He researched two concepts: self-efficacy and locus of
control as predictors of achievement. Study activities were assessed using the Study
Activity Survey (SAS) (Christopoulos, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987). In addition, students
were asked about their allocation of study time on a routine basis. Self-efficacy was
assessed using the abbreviated form of the Self-Concept of Academic Ability Test
(SCAAT) (Brookover, Erickson, & Joiner (1967). The Concept Mastery Test (Terman,
1973) was administered as a measure of academic aptitude, followed by the Adult
Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (Nowicki & Duke, 1974). The final
18
measure completed by the subjects was the Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ)
(Martin, 1983). Of the variables, scores on the EMQ, the locus of control measure, and
the SCAAT all accounted for significant shares of the achievement variance, with scores
on the EMQ clearly the best single predictor of course achievement. Only the cognitive
scale of focus on test relevance (measures self-initiated investigation, identification, and
allocation of processing to information that is likely to be important for a test) and the
two self-management scales of assiduous resource management (measures voluntary,
intense, or earnest preparation for or application of one’s energy to the task or activity at
hand) and means of resource management (assesses the degree to which a student
uses specific procedures for managing time and effort in contrast to worrying about
managing them) were significant predictors of course achievement. These results
suggest that study time may not be nearly as important to course achievement as is a
student’s use of specific study activities.
In addition to reviewing the literature pertaining to the two conceptual models (the IE-O model and self-regulated learning), a review of the literature of the various
constructs of study behavior was conducted, including habits, attitudes, and strategies.
Study habits
In review, study habits are study practices that a student engages in, including but
not limited to number of hours studied per week, time of day of studies, typical place of
study, organization, time management, effort, planning, procrastination, and
concentration. Many researchers have explored this aspect of study behavior.
Some of the earliest research found on study habits was done by Williamson (1935).
Students recorded for the week just preceding fall mid-quarter examinations, the time
19
they gave to study, classroom and laboratory work , social engagements, participation
in campus activities, leisure, and outside work and home duties. The average student
claimed to have spent 26.4 hours per week in study, 21 hours in the classroom and
laboratory, 8 hours in social engagements, 1.5 hours in campus activities, 6.5 hours in
outside work and home duties, and 10.3 hours in leisure time activities for the week.
The first five days of the week were alike or almost alike in respect to the number of
hours the average first-year student spent studying. There was a marked decrease in
the average on Saturday. The number of hours increased on Sunday, but did not equal
weeknight levels. The number of hours spent studying was positively correlated (r=.20)
with academic intelligence. The author concluded that the number of hours of study a
student gave to his scholastic work was less significant than academic intelligence. A
recommendation was made that students of low ability study more hours in order to do
passing work. The author also felt that an increase in the number of hours of study by
students of low ability would not necessarily result in much higher scholarship.
Wagstaff and Mahmoudi (1976) also examined study habits to determine what
influence holding a job had upon study time and to examine the relationship between
self-reported study behaviors and academic performance. Students completed a
questionnaire in which they estimated the number of hours they spent studying and
working per week and their study habits. The most powerful variable in predicting GPA
was the work completion variable defined as the extent to which the student was able to
complete all the assigned reading and all the assigned problems prior to the
examinations. The students’ estimates of the number of hours worked per week failed to
add to the predictability of the equation, although the simple correlation of hours worked
20
with GPA was significant (r=.22). The correlation between the estimated number of
hours worked per week and the estimated number of hours studied per week was not
significant (r= -.01), suggesting that hours worked is not attributable to a decreased
amount of study time. The most noteworthy result of this study was the sizeable
proportion of GPA variance which could be attributed to the work-completion variable.
Another group of researchers who investigated study habits was Cerrito and Levi
(1999). They asked students enrolled in three different entry-level mathematics courses
to keep track of their study habits, work, and leisure activities for one week. Students
were asked how much time they should be studying for every hour spent in class and
then were asked how much time they actually studied for every hour spent in class. The
authors stated that the “rule of thumb” has always been that students should study two
to three hours outside of class for every hour they spend in class. However, when
asked, 25% of the students believed that 1.5 hours of study for every hour in class was
high, and 75% believed that three hours was unreasonable. Students reported that they
should study 1.5 to two hours (median) for each hour in class, yet only actually studied
46 minutes to one hour and twenty minutes. It was also found that, on average, the
students studied more for their mathematics class than for other classes. Overall, the
results demonstrate that students were not spending sufficient time studying according
to the “rule of thumb,” and find it an unreasonable expectation. Findings also indicated
that students had sufficient studying time available but chose to spend the time in
activities other than studying.
Allen, Lerner, and Hinrichsen (1972) studied academic aptitude, test anxiety, and
self-report study data of university students in order to determine whether study-related
21
behaviors would increase prediction of GPA and to assess relations between test
anxiety, study behaviors, and grades. Students were asked to record study behaviors,
including study time, number of interruptions, and type of study engaged in. Participants
completed personality inventories including the Anxiety Differential (AD), Anxiety
Achievement Test (AAT), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Test Anxiety Scale
(TAS), and social desirability (MC-SD). Two of the study variables (number of days
studied r=.23 and total number of interruptions r=-.19) correlated significantly with GPA.
More days spent studying were related to higher grades. The best predictor of GPA was
high school percentile rank (r=.68). The number of days participants studied also added
significantly to the final prediction. Peaks in study occurred at the beginning of the
semester and during the midterm and final examination periods. Results of this study
suggest that self-reported study behaviors are useful predictors of GPA.
Study habits of college students were also examined by Schuman, Walsh, Olson,
and Etheridge (1985). The relation between college grades and self-reported amount of
effort was examined in four investigations of undergraduates.
In the first study, students were asked to report the typical number of hours they studied
on weekdays and weekends, and the number of hours they studied in the past week or
so. The median number of hours of studying reported per day was 3.8, with half the
sample falling within the range of 2.7 to 4.9. The number of hours studied was related to
the major field of concentration. Natural science students studied the most, especially
premedical students; it was appreciably lower for social science and humanities majors.
The relationship of GPA to hours studied was marginally significant (r=.11). Class
attendance was also positively correlated with GPA (r=.27). Neither self-reported
22
participation in class discussions nor amount of note-taking in classes was associated
with GPA. Class attendance, study time, and SAT scores were the three significant
predictors of GPA.
In a second investigation, students in a chemistry course were surveyed. A
questionnaire asking about studying and class attendance was used. Twenty-eight
percent of the sample reported averaging one hour or less of study on weekdays over
the previous week, while 22% reported averaging three or more hours a day during the
same period. Reports of class attendance were modestly but significantly related to
course grades. Time spent studying was not significantly associated with grades. Data
from this single class provided even less evidence than the larger survey that quantity of
studying had any appreciable effect on grades.
In the third investigation, nothing was said to students about the researchers’ interest
in studying, but rather respondents were asked to provide a time log of all their activities
for the day previous to an interview. Preprofessional and regular natural science majors
almost tied for highest number of hours studied. Hours studied showed no correlation
with GPA for the total sample (r=-.02).
In the fourth study, students were asked a set of questions on time spent the
previous day in various activities including studying. Typical time spent studying during
the past several weeks was also obtained, as was study time lost due to distractions or
daydreaming. GPA was not significantly predicted from hours spent studying the
previous day (r=-.05).
One major concern shared by these and other investigators was the possible
invalidity of student reports of their own studying. Students may not know how much
23
they study, and there may also be some unwillingness to report honestly. The problem
is an inherently difficult one, because studying is not always directly observable (e.g., a
student staring at a book may well be daydreaming), and in addition attempts at direct
observation or detailed recording (as through diaries) might distort the phenomenon
itself.
One other author who examined study habits was Zuriff (2003). Students kept daily
diaries of the time spent studying for one course. The mean study time per week per
student was 3.66 hours. Study time dropped to below two hours a week by the third
week of classes, but then peaked at weeks six, ten, and 14. There was no correlation
between exam scores and study time (r=-.0057 and r=.0393). There also was no
correlation between exam scores and time spent cramming.
Edwards (1993) studied math students’ study habits. The researcher developed a
questionnaire that asked students about study time, studying with other students, how
many days prior to the due date the students started to work on a homework
assignment, and how often the students used the tutoring center. Results showed that
the mean number of hours studied per week was 6.48 for precalculus, 4.38 for first
semester calculus, and 5.82 for second semester calculus. Study time of at least eight
hours per week was recommended. There was a weak correlation between study time
and expected course grades.
Lin and McKeachie (1979) explored academic performance, anxiety, gender, and
study habits. The subjects were university students during two different years (1961 and
1963). The Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA) (Brown & Holtzman, 1956)
was used. The students also took the Achievement Anxiety Test (Alpert & Haber, 1960),
24
which placed students either in a High Debilitating Anxiety group or a High Facilitating
Anxiety group. Results showed that, except for the 1963 male group, students with good
study habits achieved better grades than comparable poor study habits groups. For
women, but not for men, the group with good study habits also showed significantly
better performance on the Knowledge Test and Essay Test than the poor study habits
group in 1963. The researchers also found that student study habits contributed to
academic achievement, particularly for women.
DeVito, Tryon, and Carlson (1983) also studied university students’ study habits by
using the SSHA. This study compared math and verbal SAT scores as well as study
habit scores obtained from first-year students in the classes of 1973 and 1983. The
SSHA showed that the women’s delay avoidance (procrastination) scores were
significantly higher than the men’s. There was no significant class difference in delay
avoidance. Both the class and sex main effects were significant for work methods
(planning and work habits), with the class of 1983 reporting better work methods than
the class of 1973 and women reporting better work methods than men.
Correlations were used to compare SAT and study habits. The authors felt that the
low, but significant negative relationship between SSHA delay avoidance and SAT
performance suggested that brighter students tended to procrastinate in doing their
schoolwork. The significant relationship between work methods and SAT scores
suggested that those with higher aptitudes had better work methods. The decline in
SAT scores from the class of 1973 to the class of 1983 was accompanied by an
increase in study habits (work methods).
25
Study habits and locus of control of undergraduate students were explored by
Goldston, Zimmermann, Seni, and Gadzella (1977). The Rotter Internal-External Scale
(Rotter, 1966) and the SSHA were completed by students. The internally-oriented males
scored significantly higher than externally oriented males on the Delay Avoidance
(procrastination) scale and on the over-all measure, Study Orientation. Results showed
significant differences between the internally oriented females and (a) the internally
oriented males on the Delay Avoidance and Work Methods (planning and work habits)
scales, and on the total score, Study Orientation; (b) the externally oriented males on
the Delay Avoidance and Work Methods scales; and (c) the externally oriented females
on the total score, Study Orientation. In each case, the internally oriented females’
scores were higher. Externally oriented females reported significantly higher scores
than externally oriented males on the Delay Avoidance scale; on one subscale, Study
Habits; and on the total score, Study Orientation. Stated simply, the females reported
having better study habits than did the males. In the locus-of-control groups, the
internally-oriented subjects reported having better study habits than did the externallyoriented subjects. The externally oriented males reported the lowest scores on the study
habits measures. In general, on study habits females reported higher scores than the
males and internally oriented subjects reported higher scores than the externallyoriented ones.
Okpala, Okpala, and Ellis (2000) explored the study habits of college students. GPA
and study time did not explain course grades. The authors showed that students cannot
improve their grades by merely increasing their study time.
26
Other researchers who examined study habits were Dickinson and O’Connell (1990).
Similar to the Cerrito and Levi (1999) study, students were asked to keep a study log.
The researchers investigated the relationship between study time and test scores. The
students studied approximately three hours per week for the class, with an emphasis on
reading and reviewing. Students spent more time studying during midterm and final
exam weeks. The correlations for all of the study variables, except reading, were
significant for the total sample. The time spent organizing had a stronger relationship
with course test scores than did total study time, and time spent reading and reviewing.
Reviewing and total study time were significantly correlated with test scores.
Lammers, Onwuegbuzie, and Slate (2001) also explored study habits and strategies
of university students. The authors’ purpose was to examine how habits, age, gender,
classification (freshman vs. non-freshman), study time, and employment status may
affect academic achievement. For the respondents, the mean GPA was 3.13, the mean
hours per week studying was 15.6, and the mean hours per week working was 15.6.
There was a significant relationship between age and study time (r=.25). Older students
tended to spend more time studying. A significant and moderate negative relationship
was found between students’ GPA and work (r=-.28), indicating that students who spent
the most time working tended to have the lowest academic achievement. Females were
found to spend significantly more time studying and to report significantly higher GPAs
than did males. Findings revealed no difference in GPA across classifications and no
difference in hours spent studying across classifications. Juniors and seniors spent
more hours working than did freshman. Hours working was a significant predictor of
GPA. Hours working explained 4.8% of the variance in GPA. The model indicated that
27
the higher the GPA, the better the study skills students displayed and the fewer hours
they spent working. Females reported significantly more time studying than males.
Students who spent the least amount of time studying were more likely to have
inconsistent study patterns and to review for examinations the night before they took
place.
Summary of study habit literature
Most of the research on study habits used a measure of academic aptitude, such as
GPA, course grades, and exam grades as the dependent variables, while independent
variables included study time, SAT scores, age, gender, and anxiety. Correlation,
multiple regression, and ANOVA were the typical statistical analyses that were used.
Several of these studies were completed at state-supported institutions, but used very
different samples of students, including mathematics, psychology, and literature,
science, engineering, and arts students. Some of the studies used large sample sizes,
others used small sample sizes. Several studies had more females than males in their
sample. It is difficult to compare the demographics of the samples, because some
authors did not report age, gender, or race/ethnicity in their articles. Several of the
researchers used a study questionnaire in their work and several had students complete
a study log.
Results of the literature on study habits showed that study time peaks before
midterm and final examinations. Hours studied predicted GPA in one study and did not
predict GPA in another study. Hours studied did not predict course grade in two studies.
Exam scores correlated with study time in one study but not in another. Study time
correlated to GPA in two studies. Females have better study habits than males and
28
older students study more than younger students. Students with higher GPAs had better
study habits than those with lower GPAs.
Study attitudes
As described in the definition section, study attitudes are the way of acting or
behaving that shows what a student is thinking or feeling about studying, including but
not limited to prioritization of studying, importance of studying, confidence, satisfaction,
usefulness of course material, mood, excitement about academic topics, motivation to
study, interest in course, worrying about success, belief in ability to succeed. Very few
authors have researched this aspect of studying.
DeVito, Tryon, and Carlson (1983) studied university students’ study attitudes by
using the SSHA. This study compared math and verbal SAT scores as well as study
attitude scores obtained from freshmen in the classes of 1973 and 1983. The results of
the analyses for the two SSHA attitudinal measures, teacher acceptance (students’
perception of teachers) and education approval (perception of academic tasks and
educational endeavors), showed that the class of 1983 had higher teacher approval and
educational acceptance than the class of 1973. Women had more favorable study
attitudes than men.
Goldston, Zimmermann, Seni, and Gadzella (1977) explored study attitudes and
locus of control of students. The Rotter Internal-External Scale (Rotter, 1966) and the
SSHA were completed by students. The internally- oriented males when compared with
the externally-oriented males, scored significantly higher on the Teacher Approval and
Educational Acceptance scales; and on study attitudes. Results showed significant
differences between the internally-oriented females and (a) the internally-oriented males
29
on the Educational Acceptance scale; and on the Study Attitudes subscale; (b) the
externally-oriented males on all scales; and (c) the externally-oriented females on the
Teacher approval and Educational Acceptance scale; and on study attitudes. In each
case, the internally-oriented females’ scores were higher. Externally- oriented females
reported significantly higher scores than the externally- oriented males on the
Educational Acceptance and Teacher Approval scale and on study attitudes. Stated
simply, the females reported having better study attitudes than did the males. In the
locus-of control groups, the internally-oriented subjects reported having better study
attitudes than did the externally-oriented subjects. The externally-oriented males
reported the lowest scores on the study attitudes measures. In general, on study
attitudes females reported higher scores than the males and internally-oriented subjects
reported higher scores than the externally-oriented ones.
Summary of study attitude literature
In order to investigate study attitudes, researchers used similar variables. Dependent
variables used included SAT scores, percentile rank in high school class, and SSHA
scores. Independent variables included locus of control and gender. No mention was
made of the age of students used in the studies. Typical analyses used included
ANOVA and t-tests. Again, it is difficult to compare demographics of the samples, since
the authors did not report age or race/ethnicity.
Results of the literature on study attitudes showed that females, in general, have
better, or more favorable, study attitudes. Females with internal and external locus of
control had higher study attitude scores than males.
30
Study strategies
To review, study strategies are various skills, learning methods, and study tactics
that students engage in to achieve their short-term goals and overall goals for studying.
Examples include but are not limited to: structuring content (making an outline of
content), selecting (highlighting), making deeper links (making concept maps), planning
(setting objectives for oneself), rehearsing (rehearsing information), collaborating
(assisting peers), note taking, relaxation techniques, using a study guide, and
memorizing course content. Many researchers have explored this aspect of study
behavior.
Houston (1987) studied students’ study strategies using the College Adjustment and
Study Skills Inventory (CASSI) (Christensen, 1968). The CASSI is an instrument that
measures time distribution, attitude and personal adjustment, reading and class
participation, taking notes, and taking examinations. The purpose of the investigation
was to ascertain if the CASSI, high school rank, and scores on the verbal and math
subtests of the SAT predicted first-semester college GPA. Significant correlations were
shown for all but one of the variables with college GPA. Taking notes was correlated
only .13 with GPA, whereas the highest correlation was with high school rank (r=.50).
There were no significant sex differences on SAT (Verbal) or on any of the CASSI
variables. Time Distribution made the greatest contribution to the variance in GPA
(20%). The CASSI total score added exactly zero to the final variance. Among the
academic variables, high school rank accounted for the greatest amount of variance in
GPA. However, when Time Distribution was added to high school rank, the variance
was increased substantially.
31
Gadzella and Williamson (1984) examined undergraduates’ study strategies by using
the CAI Study Skills Test (Brown & Gadzella, 1981). The data showed significant
correlations between GPA and the total study skills scores (r=.52), the total study skills
score and the total self-concept score (r=.31), GPA and all study skills scales except
Scholastic Motivation, the total study skills score and all self-concept subscales except
Identity and Physical Self, and the total self-concept score and all study skills scale
scores except Scholastic Motivation and Concentration Improvement. Two stepwise
multiple regression analyses were computed with GPA as a criterion measure. In the
first analysis, the total study skills (Study Effectiveness) score accounted for 27% of the
total variance.
In the second analysis, the total study skills and the total self-concept measures
were left out of consideration. The results indicated that the Oral Reporting (study skills)
score accounted for 18.9% of the total variance. Two other measures, Interpersonal
Relations (study skills) and Personal Self measures, added 5.9% and 3.1%,
respectively, to the explained variance. The authors concluded that study skills predict
academic achievement.
Onwuegbuzie and Daley (1998) studied undergraduates’ study strategies by using
the Study Habits Inventory (SHI). The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether
undergraduates’ study skills were correlated with academic locus of control (personal
control over academic outcomes), self-perception (perceived scholastic competence,
perceived self-worth, and perceived intellectual ability), and social interdependence
(cooperative, competitive, and individualistic perceptions). Results showed significant
correlations with study skills were evident for scores on locus of control, individualistic,
32
perceived scholastic competence, perceived self-work, and perceived intellectual ability.
Students with the best study skills tended to score higher on internal academic locus of
control, individualistic, perceived scholastic competence, perceived self-worth, and
perceived intellectual ability variables. These variables combined to explain 39% of the
variance in scores on study skills. This model indicated that academic locus of control is
the best predictor of study skills, explaining 27% of the variance.
Other authors used the SHI in their study, namely Jones, Slate, Mahan, Green,
Marini, and DeWater (1994). These authors conducted two surveys of college students’
study strategies. In the first study the researchers were interested in lower division
students’ study skills strengths and weaknesses and the relationship between study
skills and gender. In the second study, upper and lower division students were
surveyed. In this study, the researchers were interested in the relationship between
study skills and age, study skills and grade level, and study skills and GPAs.
In the first study, the SHI was used. The mean SHI total score for the sample was
34.2 (63 possible), indicating that the students typically performed only 54% of the
behaviors assessed by the SHI appropriately.
Analysis revealed study skills strengths and weaknesses. Strengths included note
taking, having necessary materials at hand, not drinking beer while studying, trying to
apply facts learned in courses to other courses and to events outside of school, and
turning papers in on time. Weaknesses included not reading, not recopying lecture
notes, not using a special system for learning new terminology, procrastination, and not
making simple diagrams.
33
A statistically significant difference was found between the SHI scores of the
genders, indicating that females demonstrated better study skills than did males.
Females tended to rely less on memory, were more likely than males to record
information they thought they would remember later, were better prepared for studying
than were males, and were less likely than males to drink beer while studying, but
males were less likely than females to try to take verbatim transcripts.
In the second study, the mean SHI total score for the sample was 33.7 (63 possible),
indicating that students typically performed only slightly more than half (53.3%) of the
behaviors on the SHI appropriately.
All of the characteristic strengths reported in the first study were also identified as
strengths in the second study. Students in this study reported additional strengths,
including note taking, thinking critically about new material, and studying by themselves
prior to studying with peers. All of the weaknesses reported in the first study were also
identified as weaknesses in the second study. Students in this study also reported that
they typically did not make outlines or chapters before reading them.
A significant difference was found between the genders, indicating that females
typically demonstrated better study skills than did males. Females relied less on
memory, were better prepared to study, were less likely to drink alcohol while studying,
tested themselves more frequently, were less likely to report a problem with reading too
slowly, and if they planned to study with friends, females were more likely to study by
themselves ahead of time.
SHI scores were significantly correlated with age, indicating that older students
tended to report more appropriate study behavior. Older students were more likely to
34
use dictionaries and workbooks, were less likely to daydream in class and to waste
study time outside of class, were less likely to report problems remembering what they
read and were less likely to report having short study periods.
Differences in study skills across class levels were not significant. Although lower
division students were more likely to complete assigned readings ahead of time, they
were also more likely to have problems remembering what they read. Lower division
students were also less likely to study in a distracting environment and to use
workbooks to guide their studying.
There was a significant correlation between students’ SHI scores and GPAs (r=.36),
indicating that students with high SHI scores tended to have higher GPAs. Students
with low GPAs were more likely to skip classes, to daydream while in class, to have
short study periods, to study on their own before group study sessions, and to try to
think critically or to develop personal examples than were students with high GPAs.
Ironically, students with low GPAs were also more likely to recopy lecture notes.
The SHI was also used by Jones, Slate, and Kyle (1992) in their research on study
strategies. The mean score on the SHI was 36.4 (63 possible), indicating that students
responded appropriately to less than 60% of the items on the SHI. Analysis identified
academic strengths and weaknesses. Three general themes were revealed: note
taking, time management, and study techniques. The students reported a number of
positive note taking behaviors including using notebooks, not attempting to create
verbatim transcripts, not including irrelevant or unimportant material, and using
paraphrases and abbreviations. On the other hand, the students seldom recopied their
35
notes and did not maintain a special system for recording new words and their
meanings.
The students reported a number of effective time management behaviors including
sufficiently long study periods, not wasting time, being well prepared for study periods,
having necessary materials at hand, studying ahead of time when they planned to study
with friends, and getting reports ready on time. Unfortunately, the students also
procrastinated studying.
Students reported that, rather than memorization, they used a number of study
techniques including thinking critically about new information, breaking large amounts of
information into smaller clusters, and using material learned in one course to assist
them in other courses and in events outside school. Unfortunately, they infrequently
created charts or diagrams and did not develop organizers that helped focus their
reading.
The correlation between SHI scores and course grades was weak but significant
(r=.33). Upper quartile students were more likely to report appropriate study behavior.
Lower quartile students were less likely to follow a study schedule, to engage in review,
to engage in over-learning before a test or to engage in comprehension monitoring.
They were inclined to procrastinate, did not devote enough time to studying, and were
unable to space their study periods appropriately. They were more likely to waste study
time, to be interrupted, to not turn reports in on time, to put notes away after an exam, to
study only to remember material until the test was over, and to make studying more
enjoyable by drinking beer while they studied.
36
Other researchers who explored study strategies included Jones, Slate, and Marini
(1995). Students provided their H.S. GPA, the extent to which they believed high school
prepared them for college, and expected course grade. Students also reported study
and work time, and number of enrolled credit hours. The students completed the SHI,
the Academic Locus of Control Scale for College Students (ALC) (Trice, 1985), and the
Social Interdependence Scale (SIS) (Johnson & Norem-Hebeisen, 1979). The ALC is a
28 true-false item questionnaire related to personal control over academic outcomes.
Scores range from 1 (strong internal locus) to 28 (strong external locus). SIS is a 22item scale. The questionnaire consists of three separate scales, cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. A high score indicated the more cooperative, the more
competitive, or the more individualistic subjects considered themselves to be. The mean
SHI score for students in this study was 32.1, indicating that they typically performed
only 51% of the behaviors assessed by the SHI appropriately. The mean ALC total
score for the sample was 12.1, indicating that most students tended slightly toward an
internal locus of control. Students reported studying a mean of 93.9 minutes per day
with a range from 0 to 510 minutes. Demographic characteristics, academic
preparation, time factors, and attitudinal variables produced a statistically significant
equation, which accounted for 45% of the variance in study skills. The four variables
that contributed to this equation were locus of control, age, expected grade, and study
time. The strongest relationship was between study skills and locus of control (r=-.52).
Students who had an internal locus of control tended to have better study skills. The
second strongest relationship was between study skills and age, with older students
tending to have better study skills. Study time was significantly related to both hours
37
employed (r=-.15) and credit hours taken (r=.25). The more hours students worked, the
less they studied; the more enrolled credit hours, the more they studied. Expected
course grade was also related to the use of study skills. Interestingly, the higher the
grade a student expected, the lower the quality of study skills.
Jones, Lawler-Prince, and Slate (1996) studied the differences in study skills
between college seniors majoring in elementary and in secondary education.
Participants completed the SHI. The mean SHI total scores for the elementary
education and secondary education majors were 37.2 and 36.6 respectively (63
possible) (not significant). Although elementary and secondary education majors did not
differ in their overall level of academic skills, they did differ in approach to studying. The
academic behavior of elementary education majors was more appropriate than was the
academic behavior of secondary education majors in two ways. First, elementary
education majors tended to get adequate sleep and were less likely to drink beer while
studying. In addition, elementary education majors had less difficulty identifying
important information when studying. On the other hand, secondary education majors
demonstrated more appropriate academic behaviors than did elementary education
majors in three ways. Secondary education majors (a) made better use of study time,
(b) had better note-taking skills, and (c) were better able to apply what they were
learning to everyday life.
Study strategies were also explored by Bailey and Onwuegbuzie (2002).
Participants were administered the SHI. Results showed that the mean SHI score for
the students was 34.92 (63 possible), indicating that they regularly performed only
55.4% of appropriate behaviors on the SHI. The study strengths of the sample included
38
note-taking, time management, and study techniques. For note taking, students
reported that they used notebooks, took notes as they read, and used abbreviations and
phrases. For time management, students had papers completed on time. For study
techniques, students had the necessary materials to study and they avoided alcohol.
The participants also tried not to rely on memorization. These students also were more
likely to divide study material into meaningful parts that could be studied separately.
Further, the sample members reported avoiding accepting everything that they read.
Moreover, they tended not to have problems identifying the important aspects of
readings.
Study weaknesses of the sample included note-taking, study techniques, and
reading skills. For note-taking, students did not use designated notebooks or recopy
their notes. These students also did not use a tape recorder. For study techniques,
students tended to procrastinate. For reading skills, students did not create outlines.
Most students reported that they often read without comprehension.
The lower achievers were more likely to report that (a) they frequently include
irrelevant or unimportant information in their notes, (b) they do not seek help from their
instructor, (c) they put their lecture notes away after taking the test and never consult
them again, (d) they have to be in the mood before studying, (e) they have a tendency
to doodle or to daydream, and (f) they do not look up the meanings of new words.
Another author (Bartling, 1988) examined study strategies of college students. The
Inventory of Learning Processes Shortened Form (ILP-SF) (developed by Bartling) was
administered prior to the first college semester and again during the fourth semester.
The ILP-SF measures both deep processing and systematic study methods. Scores on
39
the deep processing scale increased significantly over the two-year period. Scores on
the systematic study methods scale decreased significantly over the two-year period.
Correlations between scores on the ILP-SF scales measured prior to the first semester
and the four semester GPAs were consistently low, with only one of the 16 correlations
(fact retention) reaching statistical significance. All of the correlations involving the H.S.
GPAs and ACT scores as predictor variables were significant. Correlations between
scores on the ILP-SF scales measured during the students’ fourth semester and the
four semester GPAs all were significant, except study methods with first and second
semester GPAs. One important finding in this study is that after the first two years of
college study, successful students were less likely to report using systematic study
methods (i.e., lower scores on the Study Methods scale of the ILP-SF), but were more
likely to report using deep level approaches to study (i.e., higher scores on the
Synthesis-Analysis scale of the ILP-SF). The authors also concluded that students’
perceptions of their learning and study habits were more closely related to their current
and past academic performances than were their academic performances dependent
upon their learning and study habits.
Kirkland and Hollandsworth (1979) also researched study strategies using the
Effective Study Test (EST) (Brown, 1975). The researchers studied the relationship
between test anxiety, study skills, and academic performance. Students also took the
Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT) (Albert & Haber, 1960), the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS),
and the General Anxiety Scale (GAS). Results showed that the EST was correlated
positively with GPA (r=.37) and ACT (r-.40). ACT scores, AAT score, and the
Examination Behavior Scale (SEB) from the EST predicted GPA (41% of the total
40
variance). When ACT scores were left out of the second equation with GPA as the
criterion, the SEB and the AAT score accounted for 27% of the total variance. When the
ACT was the criterion variable in the third regression analysis, SEB and AAT, were the
only two measures that significantly increased predictive ability. The results of this
investigation demonstrated that impaired academic performance is significantly related
both to high levels of debilitative and low levels of facilitative achievement anxiety and
deficits in test-taking skills. A second measure of test anxiety and measures of study
skills were also significantly related to the GPAs and ACT scores for the sample. A
measure of general anxiety was only weakly related to GPAs and unrelated to ACT
scores.
Zlokovich, et al. (2003) utilized the Study Habits Survey to explore how students
prepared for exams. In addition to completing the Study Habits survey, students were
asked to report their most recent exam grade, and predict their next exam grade and
their final course grade. Results showed that 37% to 53% of students completed
reading before lecture, 59% to 71% completed readings before exams, and 80% to 92%
completed the study guide. Students reported that they spent two hours studying for
exams, and that they started reading and studying three days before the exam. The
students spent a mean of 1.62 hours reviewing their notes, slept a mean of 6.71 hours
the night before their exams, and worked a mean of 18.37 hours in the week before
exams. The mean course grade earned was 3.82 (five-point scale), which was a C.
Students with an A read between 40% and 64% of the assigned reading before lectures
and read only 61% to 81% of the assigned material and completed between 88% and
99% of the study guide before the exams. The percentage of a study guide completed
41
was significantly related to course grade; while the percentage of the reading completed
before the exams was not. Hours worked were not significantly related to final course
grades. Work hours were significantly related to the percentage of reading completed
before exams. Nonworking students completed the most reading before exams, but
hours worked were not related to course grade. Overall, the researchers felt that these
findings reflect poor study skills and low motivation to learn on the part of students.
Study strategies of college students were also researched by Okpala, Okpala, and
Ellis (2000). Seventy percent of them worked more than 20 hours weekly. Student study
strategies were assessed using a three-question survey that addressed (a) avoiding
friends when studying, (b) studying the main points, and (c) following a study routine.
Results showed that the study strategies students used were significant in explaining
course grade for all students. Above-average and below-average students’ student
study strategies and academic efficacy were positively associated with course grade.
GPA was insignificant in explaining course grades. The authors showed that students
have a better chance of good grades if they develop good study strategies and have a
high degree of behavioral confidence, not by simply increasing their study time.
Other researchers who researched study strategies were Dickinson and O’Connell
(1990). As in the Cerrito and Levi (1999) research, students were asked to keep a study
log, including the time they spent reading, reviewing, and organizing (writing answers to
objectives, finding a structure to the material, combining lecture and reading notes, and
figuring out the meaning of the material) for the course. The correlations for reviewing
and organizing were significant for the total sample. The time spent organizing had a
stronger correlation with course test scores than did total study time, and time spent
42
reading and reviewing. Reviewing was significantly correlated with test scores also, but
the correlation coefficient was minimal.
Lammers, Onwuegbuzie, and Slate (2001) also explored study strategies of
university students. Participants completed a questionnaire that included time spent
studying and working. The SHI was also used. The mean SHI score for students was
33.36 (possible score 63), indicating that they typically performed only 53% of
appropriate behaviors on the SHI. Study skills strengths included note-taking, time
management, and study techniques. Study skills weaknesses included note-taking,
reading skills, and time management. Of most interest was the fact that the SHI scores
were related positively to age (r=.19), GPA (r=.36), and study time (r=.24), and related
negatively to work time (r=-.16). Females reported significantly higher SHI scores.
ANOVA was used to examine age, GPA, study time, work time, and the SHI scores as a
function of college classification level. Findings revealed no difference in GPA, no
difference in hours spent studying, and no difference in SHI scores across
classifications. Multiple regression analysis indicated that SHI score and hours spent
working were significant predictors of GPA, combining to explain 18% of the total
variance. The SHI score explained 13.2% of the variance in GPA, and hours working
explained an additional 4.8% of the variance. The model indicated that the higher the
GPA, the better the study skills students displayed and the less they worked. Students
with the highest GPA were more likely to concentrate while studying for short periods,
study beyond the point of immediate recall, recopy notes, complete reports on time,
identify important aspects of reading, seek help from instructors, and record all
important information in their notebooks. GPA, study time, and gender significantly
43
predicted SHI scores. These variables combined to explain 18.5% of the total variance.
The model indicates that study skill use tended to improve with GPA, study time, and
female status. Overall, the study showed that the sample exhibited poor study skills.
Study skills are a function of maturity level. Those students who spent the most time
working were less likely to attend class regularly, to review material frequently, to exhibit
much less difficulty getting focused, and not to be sleep deprived.
Study strategies were also explored by Agnew, Slate, Jones, and Agnew (1993).
Students were administered the SHI, the Academic Locus of Control Scale for College
Students (ALC), and the Educational Participation Scale (EPS). The mean SHI score
was 32 (63 possible) indicating that, on average, students responded to only 50.8% of
the items appropriately. These scores were positively correlated with GPA (r=.43).
Strengths of the sample included note-taking and study techniques. Students used
abbreviations and phrases, used a notebook, and if they used a tape recorder, took
notes also. Students said they did not try to memorize, and they tried to relate one
course to other courses and events outside of school. Weaknesses included notetaking, study techniques, and reading skills. Few students had a system for recording
new words and their meanings. Students were weak in using charts or diagrams, and
they tended to procrastinate. Reading was the students’ weakest area of academic skill.
They read several pages without comprehension, and did not develop outlines,
questions, or a list of new terms. Locus of control scores were negatively correlated with
SHI scores (r=-.62). The more external students’ locus of control, the weaker their
academic skills tended to be. The more students believed they could control their
academic outcomes, the more appropriate their academic behavior. Having external
44
expectations was also negatively correlated with SHI scores (r=-.19). Entering college in
order to meet external demands was associated with poor academic skills.
Wilhite (1990) also explored study strategies. Study activities were assessed using
the Study Activity Survey (SAS) (Christopoulos, Rohwer, & Thomas, 1987). In addition,
students were asked about their allocation of study time on a routine basis. Self-efficacy
was assessed using the abbreviated form of the Self-Concept of Academic Ability Test
(SCAAT) (Brookover, Erickson, & Joiner (1967). The Concept Mastery Test (Terman,
1973) was administered as a measure of academic aptitude, followed by the Adult
Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale (Nowicki & Duke, 1974). The final
measure completed by the subjects was the Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ)
(Martin, 1983). Scores on the EMQ, the locus of control measure, and the SCAAT all
accounted for significant shares of the achievement variance, with scores on the EMQ
the best predictor of course achievement. Only the cognitive scale of focus on test
relevance (measures self-initiated investigation, identification, and allocation of
information) and the two self-management scales of assiduous resource management
(measures preparation for or application of one’s energy to the task at hand) and means
of resource management (time management and effort) were significant predictors of
course achievement. Study time was not a significant predictor of course achievement.
Study time did correlate significantly with 12 of the 14 subscales of the SAS. These
results suggest that the total study time may not be nearly as important to ultimate
achievement in the course as is their specific study activities and the skill with which
they implement these study activities.
45
Strage, Baba, Millner, Scharberg, Walker, Williamson, and Yoder (2002) explored
undergraduate students’ study behavior. The researchers developed a survey about
study activities and attitudes about school work. The survey included items on
perseverance or persistence in the face of challenge, task involvement or the ability to
remain focused and goal-directed as academic material became increasingly
intractable, teacher rapport or the degree to which students perceived their instructors
as resources they could count on, study activities, effort management, time
management, note-taking, their use of the instructor as a resource, the degree to which
they would seek out a challenge, and thoughts about their responsibility for their own
learning. The researchers found that the more effort students reported expending, the
better they were succeeding. Effort expenditure was significantly correlated with GPA,
perseverance, teacher rapport, and task involvement. The more students studied, the
better they were doing on GPA, persistence, and teacher rapport. The more frequently
students completed assigned reading before class, the better they were succeeding on
GPA, persistence, task involvement, and teacher rapport. Taking good notes in class
and while reading were both associated with greater success. Taking instructors’
comments into consideration while revising a paper and talking with the instructor
outside of class were beneficial.
Prus, Hatcher, Hope, and Grabiel (1995) used the Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, 1987) to predict the first-year success of college
students. The correlations showed that LASSI scales were significantly correlated with
GPA, including the attitude, motivation, time management, concentration, study aids,
self testing, and test strategies scales. In the first multiple regression, college GPA was
46
the dependent variable. The ten LASSI scores accounted for 12% of the variance in
college GPA and only the motivation scale was significant. Correlation showed that
retention was significantly related to LASSI scales, including the motivation,
concentration, and self testing scales. All of these relationships were weak. On the
LASSI all scales except anxiety, information processing, and selecting main ideas were
found to be significantly correlated with freshman GPA. Most of these correlations were
weak. The ten LASSI scales and the five background variables accounted for 9% of the
variance in retention, and the model including both the LASSI and background variables
accounted for 8% of the variance in retention. The only LASSI scale with a significant
correlation with GPA for African-American students was the self testing scale, while
significant correlations were found between seven LASSI scales and GPA for White
students. While all but one (study aids) of the LASSI scales correlated significantly with
GPA among male students, significant correlations were found between six LASSI
scales and GPA among female students.
Corlett (1974) researched study strategies of freshmen students. The study
investigated the relationship of library skills, study strategies, and gender to academic
achievement. The SSHA was used. Gender yielded a relatively low (not statistically
significant) correlation of .18 with GPA. The positive correlations of .21 between gender
and the measure of library skills and the negative correlation of -.20 between gender
and study strategies were not significant. Library skills contributed 16% to the total
variance in GPA, while study strategies contributed 6%, and gender contributed 3%.
The author concluded that library skills appeared to be valid for forecasting success in
college. Relatively little valid variance was added by using the SSHA.
47
Cappella, Wagner, and Kusmierz (1982) studied the relationship between study
behavior and GPA by using the SSHA. Each student was asked to indicate his
undergraduate GPA. The correlation between GPA and the SSHA scores was .45.
Summary of study strategy literature
Several different study questionnaires were used to research study strategies,
including CASSI, CAI Study Skills Test, SHI, ILP-SF, EST, SAS, LASSI, and SSHA.
Several of the studies were conducted at state universities and included students in
education, psychology, foreign language, sociology, economics, agriculture, child
development, and English courses. Many of the studies used more females than males
and more Caucasian than students of color in their sample. Methods of analysis
included correlation, multiple regression, t-test, and ANOVA. Dependent variables often
included measures of academic achievement such as GPA, course grades, and
retention. Independent variables included study questionnaire scores, high school rank,
SAT scores, locus of control, self-perception, social interdependence, gender, and age.
Results of the literature on study strategies showed that in general, undergraduate
college students have poor study skills. CASSI scores, CAI Study Skills Test scores,
SHI scores, and LASSI scores correlated with GPA. One study showed that SSHA
scores were correlated to GPA, while another study showed SSHA scores did not
predict GPA. Study strategies predicted classroom achievement. Locus of control is a
predictor of study skills. Students who had internal locus of control had better study
skills. Females and older students have better study skills and more appropriate study
behavior. The more students worked, the less they studied. Deep processing study
skills increased as students progressed through college. One study showed that the
48
more students studied, the higher their GPA, while another study showed that study
time did not predict course grade.
Study behavior of nursing students
Three studies of nursing students are included, even though they are international
studies, because no U.S. studies of nursing students were found. Two were conducted
in Australia, and one in Hong Kong. The two Australian studies were conducted in
diploma or three-year programs, which decreases their generalizability to BSN
programs.
One of the few studies done on nursing students focused on study strategies
(Cantwell & Moore, 1998). They investigated potential relationships between
approaches to learning and self-regulatory control and compared their role in explaining
the academic performance of university students. The Study Process Questionnaire
(SPQ) (Biggs, 1987) and Strategic Flexibility Questionnaire (SFQ) (Cantwell & Moore,
1996) were administered to students. The SPQ investigates approaches to learning
(surface, deep, and achieving approaches) and the SFQ investigates self-regulatory
control (adaptive, inflexible, and irresolute control). Adaptive control on the SFQ
(students who adjust their study methods) was correlated with both the deep (r=.60) and
achieving (r=.38) approaches to learning. Inflexible control on the SFQ (students who
persist with habitual study strategies) was correlated with a surface approach to
learning (r=.37). Irresolute control on the SFQ (students who have extreme difficulty in
conceptualizing study strategy options) was associated with the surface approach
(r=.36) and the achieving approach (r=.17). The link between a deep approach and
adaptive control was strongest, which confirmed the researchers’ position that complex
49
learning involves not only the awareness of many different study strategies, but also the
awareness of the need to use flexibly these strategies in task-appropriate ways.
Irresolute control was significantly negatively related to performance in all courses
(nursing practice, r=-.27; health studies, r=-.23; anatomy and physiology, r=-.25,
psychosocial studies, r=-.19, professional studies, r=-.21) as well as overall GPA (r=.29). Higher academic grades in the senior year were related to student intention to
understand the material or to achieve, and to the ability to generate alternative learning
strategies with changing task demands. The researchers were surprised that neither the
SPQ nor the SFQ scales correlated strongly with academic performance.
Another study of nursing students was conducted at an Australian university by
Stiernborg, Guy, and Tinker, (1997). The authors researched approaches to studying
over time, study patterns of academically successful and failing students, and
correlations of ASI scores with academic performance. Seventy-nine percent reported
studying an average of 9.6 hours per week (range 1-50). The nursing students showed
no change in their study orientations from first to third year. Only one difference was
significant; on the achieving orientation third year students had a significantly higher
score than second year students. On the subscale negative attitudes to studying, third
year students had a significantly higher mean score than first and second year students.
In terms of gender, there were no significant differences on study orientation and
subscale scores, except for use of evidence where male nursing students had a
significantly higher mean than female students. Meaning orientation was positively but
weakly related to academic performance. The reproducing, achieving, and nonacademic orientations were negatively associated with academic performance. Study
50
time was associated with meaning orientation indicating that students who devote more
time to studying tend to use deep level processing. There was a low negative
correlation between study time and reproducing orientation.
Another study of nursing students also focused on study strategies. French,
Callaghan, Dudley-Brown, Holroyd, and Sellick (1998) studied the effectiveness of
tutorials (small group learning activities that were teacher-led) on bachelors degree
nursing students in Hong Kong. The major aim of this project was to see if a change in
the tutorial process would have any effect on student learning approaches and how far
student learning approaches influenced student satisfaction with respect to tutorials.
Students were randomly assigned to six groups: experimental day classes with tutorials
(groups 1-4), control, day class with tutorials (group 5), and control, evening class
without tutorials (group 6). Originally, the tutorials were used to summarize the
knowledge that was transmitted in the lecture immediately preceding the tutorial. In the
experimental tutorials, the tutors were asked to change to action learning or learning
process-based approaches. Students took both the SPQ and the ASI. An analysis of the
pre-test data indicated that groups 1 and 6 reported significantly more deep learning
strategy in their study processes than any other groups. A comparison of the pre-and
post-test data indicated that group 2 showed less reproducing orientation (surface
approach) at post-test and group 3 indicated a significant improvement in scores for
deep learning strategy. From this analysis, the only conclusion was that groups 2 and 3
changed in their learning approaches. It was notable that no change occurred in groups
1 and 4 and that both control groups indicated no change. In order to obtain some clue
as to why groups 2 and 3 may have experienced some change, qualitative data were
51
used in order to ascertain possible reasons for these findings. It seemed that observed
changes in groups 2 and 3 may have been due to three differences (a) the content was
not as closely related to the lecture material as in the other experimental groups, (b) the
classroom arrangements changed according to activities (more movement and activity),
and (c) the students communicated more with each other, especially in their own
language.
Summary of nursing literature
Again, typical dependent variables in this section included a measure of academic
performance, such as course grade and GPA. Independent variables included study
strategies, gender, age, class, and study time. Statistical analyses used included
correlation, multiple regression, and ANOVA. Most of the studies included more women
in the sample, as is typical of nursing programs. All of the studies used fairly small
sample sizes. The researchers used a variety of study questionnaires, including the
SPQ and ASI.
Results showed that the SPQ did not correlate with academic performance. A
correlation was found between students who adapt their study methods and students
who use deep processing study methods. Students who spend more time studying
tended to use deep level processing. Students who were tutored with action learning or
learning process-based approaches improved on deep learning scores.
Summary of literature review
Overall, the results of the prior research demonstrate several similarities and
contradictions. Findings of research on study habits, study attitudes, and study
strategies are summarized as follows.
52
Study habits
Predictors of study habits include gender, ACT scores, and problem-solving
appraisal. Predictors of SHI scores include GPA, study time, gender, class level, age. A
predictor of ACT scores was EST scores.
A correlation was found between SHI scores and course grades. Age was correlated
with SHI scores. Study habits were correlated with GPA. Study scores on the SHI and
GPA were correlated, indicating that students who have high SHI scores have higher
GPAs.
According to prior researchers, students are not spending enough time studying.
Researchers found that students studied between a range of 10.95 hours to 26.4 hours
per week. Peaks in studying occurred at the beginning of the semester and during the
midterm and final examination periods. Others found study peaks only during midterm
and final exam weeks. Study time was correlated with course exam scores in one study
and not correlated with course exam scores in other studies. A weak correlation
between self-reported study hours and expected course grade was found. Age was
correlated with study time. Older students tend to spend more time studying. Study time
was negatively related to hours employed and positively related to the number of credit
hours taken. The more hours students worked, the less they studied. The more credit
hours they took, the more they studied. A correlation was found between hours studied
and GPA in one sample, and no correlation in another sample. There was a correlation
between study time and GPA, persistence, and teacher rapport. Study time was related
to deep level processing. Predictors of GPA include number of days students studied,
number of hours studied, and study habits. There was a correlation between gender
53
and study time. Females spend more time studying than do males and have better
study habits. A predictor of course grade is study habits. Others found that study time
was insignificant in predicting course grades. One researcher found a low negative
correlation between work time and study time.
Study attitudes
Results of the literature on study attitudes showed that females, in general, have
better, or more favorable, study attitudes. Females with internal and external locus of
control had higher study attitude scores than males.
Study strategies
The findings reflect poor study skills. A predictor of study skills was academic locus
of control. Study skills were correlated to locus of control, individualistic perceptions,
perceived scholastic competence, perceived self-worth, and perceived intellectual
ability. Correlations between LASSI scores and GPA, between scores on the CAI Study
Skills Test and GPA, between CASSI scores and GPA, between EST scores and GPA,
between SHI scores and GPA, and between SSHA scores and GPA were found. One
researcher found no correlation between study strategies and academic performance.
Another found no correlation between study scores and academic performance. Scores
on the CAI Study Skills test are correlated with self-concept scores. Scores on the EST
are correlated with ACT scores. Internally oriented subjects have better study habits
and attitudes than do externally oriented subjects. Expected course grade is related to
study skills. Predictors of GPA include number of days students studied, number of
hours studied, SSHA scores, SHI scores, LASSI scores, scores on the CAI Study Skills
Test, and EST scores. There was a correlation between gender and SHI scores.
54
Females report higher study scores than do their male counterparts. Predictors of
course grade include study strategies and percentage of study guide completed. There
is a relationship between study skills and age. Older students tend to have better study
skills.
Much of the research on study behavior was completed in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and
1990’s. Fewer researchers examined this topic in the current decade. Several
researchers examined psychology, math, education, science, and art students’ study
behavior during those decades, but researchers did not begin examining nursing
students’ study behaviors until the end of the 1990’s. Many questions remain as to the
study habits, attitudes, and strategies of nursing students and thus the current
researcher designed this descriptive research.
55
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This research was designed to examine via questionnaire the study behavior of
nursing students. After completion of the literature review, the researcher identified a
gap in the literature: very few prior researchers had examined this topic. Again, the
researcher was interested in the following research questions, What is the study
behavior (including habits, attitudes, and strategies) of nursing students? How much
time do nursing students spend studying? What variables explain the relationship
between study behavior and academic achievement of nursing students? Are there
significant differences in study behavior between nursing students who differ by age,
gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? Are there significant
differences in college academic achievement between nursing students who differ by
age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? This chapter explains
the data collection and analyses that were used in the research.
Sampling
The population consisted of all of the public and private BSN programs accredited in
the U.S. by the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC). A
stratified sample of all BSN programs accredited by NLNAC was used. Since these
nursing programs are named on a master list, the sample was drawn directly from the
list. There are currently 353 BSN programs accredited by NLNAC (as of 2004). The
sample included both public and private colleges. Stratification was also used to allow
for an approximately equal number of sophomore, junior, and senior students to be
selected. The sample was not stratified for gender, race, or age of participants. A
contact person and contact information for each program was available from the
56
NLNAC master list. This person was either a director, dean, department chairperson, or
campus chairperson for the nursing program. The instrument and cover letters (see
Appendix C) were sent to the contact persons with instructions for the nursing students.
Pre-addressed, stamped envelopes were also sent so that the nursing program
administrators could return the questionniares to the researcher.
The initial mailing of questionnaire packets was completed the last week of April
2006. Ten questionnaires, ten student cover letters, and one nursing program
administrator cover letter, and a postage-paid return envelope, were sent to each of the
353 programs and the administrators were asked to distribute them to ten sophomore
(or junior or senior) students. Approximately 3530 questionnaires were sent. A 12%
response rate was achieved, with 407 questionnaires returned to the researcher for
analysis. “Once population sizes of a certain magnitude are exceeded, population size
becomes irrelevant and a sample size of n=400 will provide adequate representation”
(Charles % Mertler, 2002, p. 154). Because the questionnaires were sent late in the
spring term, no follow-up reminder cards were sent.
Data collection
An 89-item questionnaire (see Appendix A) designed by the researcher was used.
The first nine questions were demographic in nature, asking the students their age, sex,
racial or ethnic identification, H.S. GPA, college grades, nursing course grades,
enrollment status, employment status, and college classification.
No pre-developed questionnaire included all the study areas that the researcher
planned to examine, so questions from several questionnaires were chosen for use.
Permission was obtained from The University of Edinburgh, Wilfrid Laurier University,
57
Middle Tennessee State University, and the University of Michigan to use questions
from developed questionnaires. (see Appendix A and B). Two universities (Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University for the Study Skills Inventory and Suffolk
County Community College for the Study Skills Inventory) and one publishing company
(Prentice Hall for the Study Skill Assessment) did not respond to a request for
permission to use their questions (approximately 15 questions) so those questions were
changed and paraphrased.
Questions were carefully chosen in each area of study behavior (study habits,
strategies, and attitudes) by the researcher to try to reflect a variety of skills used by
students. Questions were chosen in the study habits section that pertained to
organization, time management, effort, planning, study time, cramming, distraction,
procrastination, study environment, concentration, and class attendance. Nineteen
items pertain to study habits.
Questions were chosen in the study strategy section that pertained to goal setting,
group studying, relaxing, using practice tests, reading, reviewing, class note taking,
memorizing, using flashcards, using memory techniques, using study guide, outlining,
and chart making. Thirty-six items examined study strategies.
Questions were chosen in the study attitude section that pertained to prioritization,
importance, confidence, satisfaction, usefulness, mood, excitement, motivation, interest,
panic, worry, and success. Twenty-four items pertain to study attitudes.
The questionnaire includes 64 items about the self-regulated learning strategies (see
Appendix A). Self-evaluation was the focus of 2 items, organizing and transforming of 4,
goal setting and planning of 13, seeking information of 3, keeping records and
58
monitoring of 2, environmental structuring of 3, self-consequating of 5, rehearsing and
memorizing of 4, seeking social assistance (peers) of 2, to seeking social assistance
from teachers of 2, reviewing notes of 3, reviewing tests of 3, reviewing textbooks of 3,
self-efficacy of 10, self-reaction of 1, self-motivation of 1, and self-judgment of 1. The
questions from the study questionnaire that were included in the total self-regulated
learning score are found in the appendix. Responses on these 64 questions became the
total self-regulated learning score (maximum 256).
Respondents were asked to respond to each study question using a scale from one
to four, stating their agreement or disagreement with each statement, with one being
“disagree,” and four being “agree.” The scale did not include a “not applicable” (NA) or
“undecided” option, because the researcher wanted to encourage respondents to agree
or disagree.
Some (six of the study habits questions, three of the study strategies questions, and
six of the study attitudes questions) of the questions were worded negatively to cause
respondents to think about their responses rather than mark all items the same (Charles
& Mertler, 2002). For example, “I don’t review my class notes periodically throughout
the semester in preparation for tests” is one of the negatively-worded questions. It was
estimated that it would take the students approximately 30 minutes to complete the
questionnaire.
Two additional questions asked the students to estimate how many hours they
studied and worked in a typical week. The response choices were listed in increments
of five hours.
59
A pilot study was conducted at Mercy College of Northwest Ohio to evaluate the
questionnaire and establish reliability and validity. Cover letters and questionnaires
were distributed by nursing instructors to one sophomore, one junior, and one senior
nursing class during class time. There were 38 sophomore, 33 junior, and 29 senior
nursing students who completed the questionnaire for a total of 100 nursing students.
The length of time it took students to complete the questionnaire was recorded. Nursing
instructors reported that the range of time to complete the questionnaire was five to 20
minutes. One hundred questionnaires were scanned for scoring; 14 did not scan
properly and were removed.
Reliability
The reliability of the study questionnaire was .8663 (all items except the
demographic items). These items became the total study score. The maximum possible
score was 316 (79 items X 4 points for each item). Sixty-four of the items measured
self-regulated learning and the reliability of those questions was .8605. These 64 items
became the self-regulated learning (SRL) score. The maximum possible score on the
self-regulated learning score was 256 (64 items X 4 points).
Statistical procedures
Descriptive statistics were used to report demographic data. Frequencies and
percents were used for age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, college GPA, nursing GPA,
enrollment status, college classification, study time, and work time, as well as each of
the individual study behavior questions. Means, modes, and standard deviations were
reported for total study score and self-regulated learning score.
60
Multiple regression was used to analyze the I-E-O variables used in the study,
specifically addressing subsidiary question one. Multiple regression is a procedure
whereby the investigator can use two or more independent (input) measures to predict a
dependent (outcome) measure. “Multiple regression analysis is an excellent statistical
procedure with which to implement the I-E-O model because it permits the investigator
to control a very large number of potentially biasing student input characteristics” (Astin,
1993, p. 108). “Multiple regression identifies the best combination of predictors
(independent variables) of the dependent variable. It is used when there are several
independent quantitative variables and one dependent quantitative variable” (Mertler &
Vannetta, 2002, p. 14). In this study, multiple regression was conducted to determine
whether the independent variables (study behavior, age, gender, race/ethnicity, H.S.
GPA) predicted the dependent variables (nursing courses GPA and college GPA).
A factor analysis was conducted to determine what, if any, underlying structure
existed for measuring the 79 variables in the study questionnaire. It was hoped that the
study behavior questions would cluster together, showing that they measured a
common entity or construct, namely the three study constructs identified by the
researcher: study habits, strategies, and attitudes. Primary components analysis was
the extraction method used. The initial analysis produced a 25-component solution.
Then a three-factor and a five-factor solution were investigated. In both, no
communalities were greater than 0.7, therefore the application of the eigenvalue criteria
was not appropriate. However, the researcher chose to retain the three study constructs
based on the definitions found in the definition of terms section.
61
It was then decided to complete cross tabulations. Cross-tabulation is a statistical
procedure for determining whether the categories on one measure are associated with
the categories on another measure. Cross-tabulation is ideally suited to variables that
occur naturally in discrete categories such as gender, race, or ethnicity. (Astin, 1993).
Each of the study questions from the questionnaire was analyzed with the independent
variables of race, college GPA, nursing GPA, study time, work time college
classification, gender, and enrollment status.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to evaluate the significance of mean
differences on the dependent variables (total study score, self-regulated learning, work
time, college GPA, and nursing GPA) between two or more treatment conditions or
groups (college classification, enrollment status, H.S. GPA, study time, age, gender,
race, and work time) (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). ANOVAs were used to test the two
following research questions: Are there significant differences in study behavior
between nursing students who differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high
school achievement? Are there significant differences in college academic achievement
between nursing students who differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high
school achievement?
Data Cleaning
The negatively-worded study questions were reversed scored (disagree = 4,
disagree somewhat = 3, agree somewhat = 2, agree = 1). If a participant did not
respond to an individual study question, it was recorded as missing data and not
included in the calculations. Also, if a participant failed to any individual study question,
62
the total study score and self-regulated learning score for that participant was recorded
as missing data.
Conceptual Frameworks
As mentioned above, one of the conceptual frameworks used for the study was
Astin’s Inputs-Environment-Outputs Model (I-E-O Model) (Astin, 2002). Inputs used in
this research include the independent variables of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and H.S.
GPA. Environment includes study behavior and self-regulated learning. Outputs include
academic performance (college GPA and nursing courses GPA).
The second conceptual model used in the research was self-regulated learning.
Several items on the questionnaire measured the variables of self-evaluation, selfconsequating, and others as listed above.
63
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This research explored the study behavior of baccalaureate nursing students. Data
were gathered through a mailed questionnaire and results of the statistical measures
are presented in this chapter.
The chapter is organized into three sections. The first section presents data
describing characteristics of the sample. The next section presents data related to the
overriding research question and the three subsidiary research questions. The final
section summarizes the results.
The research was guided by two overriding research questions and three subsidiary
research questions. How much time do nursing students spend studying? What is the
study behavior (including habits, attitudes, and strategies) of nursing students?
Subsidiary questions included: (a) What variables explain the relationship between
study behavior and academic achievement of nursing students? (b) Are there significant
differences in study behavior between nursing students who differ by age, gender,
racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? And (c) Are there significant
differences in college academic achievement between nursing students who differ by
age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement?
Nursing instructors distributed the questionnaire during class time. Just over 400
usable questionnaires were returned to the researcher for analysis for a response rate
of 12% (407/3530). The questionnaires were optically scanned and the raw data were
entered into the computer software “Statistical Package for the Social Sciences” (SPSS,
Version 14.0).
64
Three additional independent variables were included in the final analysis. These
variables were not included in the original research questions, but since these variables
were measured by the questionnaire, it was decided to add them to the analysis. Two of
the new variables were input variables, including enrollment status and college
classification. The other new variable, work time, was an environment variable. These
variables were added to the I-E-O conceptual model, as depicted below.
Figure 4
Revised I-E-O Conceptual Model
Environment
Study Behavior
-Total Study Score
- Study Habits
- Study Strategies
- Study Attitudes
- Study Time
Self-Regulated Learning
Work Time
Input
Age
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
H.S. GPA
Enrollment Status
College Classification
Output
Academic Performance
College GPA
Nursing Courses GPA
Sample characteristics
Twenty-six sophomore, 170 junior, and 199 senior nursing students completed the
questionnaire for a total of 407 participants. Participant characteristics are shown in
Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4.
65
Table 1
Participant Demographic Characteristics (Input Variables) (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
________________________________________________________________
Age (n=402)
18-21
122
30
22-25
126
31
26 and older
154
38
Not reported
5
Gender (n=398)
Male
Female
23
6
375
94
Not reported
9
Race/ethnic Group (n=400)
American Indian
10
3
African American
28
7
324
81
0
0
Asian American
26
6
Other
11
3
Caucasian
Hispanic
Not reported
7
66
Table 2
Participant Academic Characteristics (Input Variables) (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
________________________________________________________________
High school GPA (n=405)
2.00-2.49
17
4
2.50-2.99
44
11
3.00-3.49
118
30
3.50 or above
226
57
Not reported
2
Enrollment status (n=401)
Full-time
373
93
Part-time
28
7
Not reported
6
College classification (n=401)
Sophomore
26
6
Junior
170
42
Senior
199
49
Unclassified
6
Not reported
6
67
Table 3
Participant Time Commitments (Environment Variables) (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
________________________________________________________________
Study time (n=400)
0
2
1
1-5
89
22
6-10
106
26
11-15
73
18
16-21
61
15
21-25
28
7
26-30
21
5
More than 30
20
5
Not reported
7
________________________________________________________________
(Table 3 continues)
68
(Table 3 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
________________________________________________________________
Work time (n=402)
0
127
32
1-5
37
9
6-10
59
15
11-15
35
9
16-20
46
11
21-25
46
11
26-30
11
3
More than 30
41
10
Not reported
5
As seen in Table 1, 30%of the participants were in the 18-21 year age range. Thirtyone percent of the participants were in the 22-25 year age range. The modal range for
age was the 26 years and older. Thirty-eight percent of the participants were in this age
range. Ninety-four percent of the participants were female. Eighty-one percent identified
themselves as Caucasian, 7% as African- American, 2.5% as American Indian, and
none of the participants identified themselves as Hispanic.
69
Table 4
Participant Academic Characteristics (Output Variables) (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
n
%
________________________________________________________________
College GPA (n=401)
2.00-2.49
5
1
2.50-2.99
43
11
3.00-3.49
186
47
3.50 or above
167
42
Not reported
6
Nursing GPA (n=401)
A
98
24
A-
65
16
B+
85
21
B
110
27
B-
28
7
C+
11
3
C
4
1
C-
0
0
Not reported
6
70
The H.S. GPA mode was 3.5 and above, with 57% of the participants in this range
(see Table 2). Thirty percent of the participants were in the 3.00-3.49 high school GPA
range; 11%of the participants were in the 2.50-2.99 H.S. GPA range; and 4% of the
participants were in the 2.00-2.49 H.S. GPA range. Ninety-three percent of the
participants were enrolled as full-time students. Only 7% reported that they were parttime students. Half of the participants were senior nursing students, 42% were juniors
and 6% were sophomores.
Research Question One: Study Time
The first research question reads: “How much do nursing students study?” As seen
in Table 3, 1%of the participants reported that they do not study in a typical seven-day
week. Approximately half of the participants reported studying ten hours per week or
less, while the other half of the participants reported studying 11 to 30 or more hours
per week. Twenty-six percent of the participants reported studying six to ten hours per
week (the modal range).
Thirty-one percent of the students did not work in a typical seven-day week. This
was the most frequently occurring response. Fifty-six percent of the participants worked
ten or fewer hours per week. Forty-four percent of the participants worked 11 to 30 or
more hours per week. Only 13% of the participants reported working 26 or more hours
per week.
As seen in Table 4, 42%(167/407) of the participants reported a college GPA of 3.50
or higher. The college GPA mode was 3.00-3.49, with 47% of the participants reporting
in this range. Eleven percent of the participants were in the 2.50-2.99 range for college
GPA. Only one percent reported a college GPA in the 2.00-2.49 range.
71
Twenty-four percent of the participants self-reported a nursing GPA of A and 16% an
A-. Twenty-one percent of the participants reported a nursing GPA of B+. The mode for
nursing course grade was B. Twenty-seven percent of the students stated that most of
their nursing course grades have been a B. Seven percent of the participants reported a
nursing GPA of B-. Three percent of the participants reported a nursing GPA of C+ and
only one percent reported a nursing GPA of C.
Study Score
For each of the 79 study questions, the participant could get four possible points
(disagree = 1, disagree somewhat = 2, agree somewhat = 3, and agree = 4), with the
possible maximum total score being 316. If a participant disagreed with every study
question, the total study score would be 79. If a participant somewhat disagreed with
every question, the score would be 158. Thus, 79 to 157 would be in the disagree
range. If a participant somewhat agreed with every question, the score would be 237.
Thus, 158-236 would be in the neutral range (between somewhat disagree and
somewhat agree). If a participant agreed with every question, the score would be 316,
thus, 237-315 would be in the somewhat agree range. The range of total study score for
the participants was 147-294, with a mean of 236. The mode was 234. This would put
the mean of 236 for the current study in the neutral. The participants answered 81% of
the questions on the study questionnaire appropriately.
Self-Regulated Learning Score
For each of the 64 study questions that made up the self-regulated learning score,
the participant could get four possible points (as above), with a possible maximum total
score being 256. If a participant disagreed with every self-regulated learning question,
72
the total self-regulated learning score would be 64. If a participant somewhat disagreed
with every question, the score would be 128. Thus, 64 to 127 would be in the disagree
range. If a participant somewhat agreed with every question, the score would be 192.
Thus, 128-191 would be in the neutral range (between somewhat disagree and
somewhat agree). If a participant agreed with every question, the score would be 265.
Thus, 192-264 would be in the somewhat agree range. The range of total self-regulated
learning score for the participants was 107-237, with a mean of 184. The mode was
183. This would put the mean of 184 for the current study in the neutral range. The
students answered 79% of the self-regulated learning questions appropriately. As seen
in Table 5 and Table 6, goal setting and planning, environmental structuring, seeking
information, rehearsing and memorizing, keeping records and monitoring, selfevaluation, reviewing records, seeking social assistance, organizing and transforming,
self-consequating, self-efficacy, self-reaction, and self-judgment were the areas of selfregulated learning that were most frequently used by the participants. The areas of selfregulated learning that were least frequently used by the participants included: goal
setting and planning, seeking social assistance, organizing and transforming, reviewing
records, keeping records and monitoring, and self-efficacy.
Research Question Two: Study Behavior
The second research question in the present study read: What is the study behavior
(including habits, attitudes, and strategies) of nursing students? This section discusses
the results of the frequency analysis pertaining to study behavior and the three
components of study behavior--study habits, strategies, and attitudes. Both highest and
lowest frequency of agree responses for the study behaviors are included.
73
Table 5
Self-Regulated Learning Questions with Highest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat
Agree Responses (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I want to make a difference in the world
(Self-consequating) (n=386)
384 100
It is important to learn the course material
(Self-efficacy) (n=391)
386
99
I believe I can succeed
(Self-efficacy) (n=391)
386
99
I hope to develop as a person
(Self-consequating) (n=390)
384
98
I hope to be more independent and self-confident
(Self-consequating) (n=388)
383
98
I work hard to do well
(Self-efficacy) (n=395)
381
97
I will understand the course material
(Self-efficacy) (n=390)
371
95
I highlight, underline, circle or star
(Seeking information) (n=397)
369
94
I usually study in a place where I can concentrate
(Environmental structuring) (n=397)
365
92
I memorize key words
(Rehearsing and memorizing) (n=396)
364
92
Study guides are useful study tools
354 92
(Seeking information) (n=397)
________________________________________________________________
(Table 5 continues)
74
(Table 5 continued)
________________________________________________________________
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I keep track of progress in nursing courses
(Keeping records and monitoring) (n=396)
362
91
I check work through
(Self-evaluation) (n=395)
360
91
I don’t review class notes (reverse scored)
(Reviewing records) (n=394)
359
91
I’m confident I can understand complex material
(Self-efficacy) (n=391)
354
91
The most satisfying thing is understanding the content
(Self-reaction) (n=391)
351
90
I ask another student for help
(Seeking social assistance) (n=395)
349
Studying is a top priority
(Self-efficacy) (n=395)
348
I develop memory techniques
(Rehearsing and memorizing) (n=396)
339
86
I organize my study time carefully
(Goal setting and planning) (n=397)
339
85
I have a fairly quiet place to study
(Environmental structuring) (n=395)
336
85
I go over the work I’ve done
(Self-evaluation) (n=397)
338
85
I pull information from different sources
(Organizing and transforming) (n=394)
332
84
88
88
I coordinate short and long term planning
332 84
(Goal setting and planning) (n=397)
_________________________________________________________________
(Table 5 continues)
75
(Table 5 continued)
________________________________________________________________
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I find the most important ideas in readings
(Reviewing records) (n=396)
326
82
I go to the instructor when confused
(Seeking social assistance) (n=391)
321
82
Studying gives me a feeling of satisfaction
(Self-consequating) (n=390)
320
82
It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material
(Self-judgment) (n=388)
315
81
I plan out my week in advance
(Goal setting and planning) (n=397)
329
80
76
Table 6
Self-Regulated Learning Questions with Lowest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat
Agree Responses (N=407)
_______________________________________________________________
n
%
_______________________________________________________________
I meet with a tutor or instructor
(Seeking social assistance) (n=394)
82
21
I often seem to panic (reverse scored)
(Self-efficacy) (n=390)
113
29
I try to do the work on my own (reverse scored)
(Seeking social assistance) (n=397)
132
33
My time management need to be improved (reverse scored) 130
(Goal setting and planning) (n=397)
33
I usually cram before an exam (reverse scored)
(Goal setting and planning) (n=397)
146
37
I edit my notes after class
(Organizing and transforming) (n=396)
155
39
I read my textbook before class
(Reviewing records) (n=397)
156
39
I keep a log of mistakes on tests
(Keeping records and monitoring) (n=396)
160
40
I reread my notes
(Reviewing records) (n=396)
163
41
Worrying interferes with studying (reverse scored)
(Self-efficacy) (n=389)
166
43
I make charts, diagrams, or tables
174 44
(Organizing and transforming) (n=393)
________________________________________________________________
(Table 6 continues)
77
(Table 6 continued)
_______________________________________________________________
n
%
_______________________________________________________________
Often I lie awake worrying about work (reverse scored)
(Self-efficacy) (n=390)
189
49
I outline course material
(Organizing and transforming) (n=393)
198
50
Study habits
The study habits for which students had the highest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 7. Eighty to 99% of the participants
agreed with these seven study questions.
Table 7
Study Habits with Highest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Study habits
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I attend this class regularly (n=396)
393
99
I usually study in a place where I can concentrate
(n=397)
365
92
I put a lot of effort into studying (n=397)
360
91
I organize my study time carefully (n=397)
339
85
I have a fairly quiet place to study (n=395)
336
85
I coordinate short and long term planning (n=397)
332
84
I plan out my week in advance (n=397)
329
80
78
The study habits for which students had the lowest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 8. (For the negatively-worded
questions, the disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported since the
students should disagree with those questions). Only 13 to 37% of the participants
agreed with these three study questions.
Table 8
Study Habits with Lowest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses
(N=407)
_______________________________________________________________
Study habits
n
%
_______________________________________________________________
I become tired or distracted (reverse scored) (n=395)
51
13
My time management needs to be improved
(reverse scored) (n=397)
130
33
I usually cram before an exam (reverse scored) (n=397)
146
37
Study strategies
The study strategies for which students had the highest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 9. (For the negatively-worded
questions, the disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported since the
students should disagree with those questions). Eighty to 97% of the participants
agreed with these 15 study questions.
79
Table 9
Study Strategies with Highest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Study strategies
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I take notes in nursing class (n=395)
384
97
I highlight, underline, circle or star (n=395)
369
94
I memorize key words (n=396)
364
92
Study guides are useful study tools (n=397)
354
92
I keep track of progress in nursing courses (n=396)
362
91
I check work through (n=395)
360
91
I don’t review class notes (reverse scored) (n=394)
359
91
I ask another student for help (n=395)
349
88
I relate ideas to other courses (n=397)
345
87
I develop memory techniques (n=396)
339
86
I go over the work I’ve done (n=397)
338
85
I pull information from different sources (n=394)
332
84
I find the most important ideas in readings (n=396)
326
82
I go to the instructor when confused (n=391)
321
82
I have difficulty understanding notes (reverse scored)
(n=395)
315
80
80
The study strategies for which students had the lowest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 10. (For the negatively-worded
questions, the disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported since the
students should disagree with those questions). Only 33 to 50% of the participants
agreed with these eight study questions, with the lowest being meeting with a tutor or
instructor.
Table 10
Study Strategies with Lowest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Study strategies
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I meet with a tutor or instructor (n=394)
82
21
I try to do the work on my own (reverse scored) (n=397)
132
33
I edit my notes after class (n=396)
155
39
I read my textbook before class (n=397)
156
39
I keep a log of mistakes on tests (n=396)
160
40
I reread my notes (n=396)
163
41
I make charts, diagrams, or tables (n=393)
174
44
I outline course material (n=394)
198
50
81
Study attitudes
The study attitudes for which students had the highest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 11. (For the negatively-worded
questions, the disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported since the
students should disagree with those questions). Eighty-one to 100% of the participants
agreed with these 16 study questions.
Table 11
Study Attitudes with Highest Frequency of Agree and Somewhat Agree Responses
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Study attitudes
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I want to make a difference in the world (n=386)
384
100
It is important to learn the course material (n=391)
386
99
I believe I can succeed (n=391)
386
99
I hope to develop as a person (n=390)
384
98
I hope to be more independent and self-confident (n=388)
383
98
I work hard to do well (n=395)
381
97
I will understand the course material (n=390)
371
95
The material is useful to learn (n=387)
368
95
I’m confident I can understand complex material (n=391)
354
91
I like the subject matter (n=390)
353
91
________________________________________________________________
(Table 11 continues)
82
(Table 11 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Study attitudes
n
%
________________________________________________________________
The most satisfying thing is understanding the content
(n=391)
351
90
There’s not work that I find interesting (reverse scored)
(n=389)
350
90
Studying is a top priority (n=395)
348
88
Studying gives me a feeling of satisfaction (n=390)
320
82
I’m not really interested in this course (reverse scored)
(n=389)
308
82
It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material (n=388)
315
81
The study attitudes for which students had the lowest frequency of agree and
somewhat agree responses are included in Table 12. (For the negatively-worded
questions, the disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported since the
students should disagree with those questions). Only 29 to 49% of the participants
agreed with these three study questions.
Table 12
Study Attitudes with Lowest Frequency of Agree Responses
________________________________________________________________
Study attitudes
n
%
________________________________________________________________
I often seem to panic (reverse scored)
113
29
Worrying interferes with studying (reverse scored)
166
43
Often I lie awake worrying about work (reverse scored)
189
49
83
To summarize research question two, the study habits most frequently selected
included attending class regularly and usually studying in a place where students can
concentrate. Study strategies most frequently selected included taking notes in nursing
class and highlighting, underlining, circling or starring important ideas when students
read. Study attitudes most frequently selected included wanting to make a difference in
the world, placing importance on learning the course material, and belief in succeeding.
Study habits least frequently selected included becoming tired or distracted when
studying and time management skills. Study strategies least frequently selected include
meeting with a tutor or instructor and trying to do the work on their own. Study attitudes
least frequently included panicking if getting behind with work and worrying that
interferes with studying.
Research Question Three: Relationship between Study Behavior
and Academic Achievement
The third research question in the present study read: What variables explain the
relationship between study behavior and academic achievement of nursing students?
Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine which independent variables
(age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, total study score, and study time) were significant
predictors of college GPA and nursing GPA. Nine percent of the variance in college
GPA was explained by the independent variables. Six percent of the variance in nursing
GPA was explained by the independent variables. Both of the final models were
significant in predicting college GPA (R squared=.094, r squared adjusted=.077,
F(6)=5.322, p<.05) and nursing GPA (R squared=.062, R squared adjusted=.044,
F(6)=3.400, p<.05).
84
Four additional independent variables were included in the multiple regression
analysis. These were not included in the original research questions, but since these
variables were measured by the questionnaire, it was decided to add them to the
analysis. Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine which independent
variables (age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, total study score, self-regulated learning score,
study time, work time, college classification, and enrollment status) were the predictors
of college GPA and nursing GPA. Eleven percent of the variance in college GPA was
explained by the independent variables. Seven percent of the variance in nursing GPA
was explained by the independent variables. Both of the final models were significant in
predicting college GPA (R squared=.114, r squared adjusted=.084, F(10)= 3.868,
p<.05) and nursing GPA (R squared=.073, R squared adjusted=.043, F(10)=2.390,
p<.05).
Research Question Four: Differences in Study Behavior
The fourth research question in the present study reads: Are there significant
differences in study behavior between nursing students who differ by age, gender,
racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? The first subsidiary question under
the fourth research question reads: Is there a significant difference in study time
between nursing students who differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high
school achievement? Several one-way univariate analyses of variance were conducted
to examine differences between the independent variables and the dependent variable
of study time. Again, since additional independent variables were measured in the
questionnaire, they were also added to these analyses. Results are reported in Tables
13 and 14. Table 13 included the means and standard deviations of the variables, while
85
Table 14 includes the remaining ANOVA results for the variables. Of all the independent
variables, only work time was significant, thus there was a difference in study time for
participants who worked many hours or few hours. Students who did not work F =
2.666, p<.05, η2 =.010 reported the highest study time (mean 11-15 hours). The LSD
post hoc test was conducted to determine which work time categories were significantly
different. Results revealed that those students who worked 0 hours were significantly
different in study time than those who worked 6-10 hours, 11-15 hours, 16-20 hours, 2125 hours, and 26-30 hours.
Senior nursing students studied more hours (mean 11-15 hours) than did sophomore
or juniors. Full-time students studied more hours (mean 6-10 hours) than part-time
students. Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 studied more hours (mean 11-15
hours) than students with a higher H.S. GPA. Nursing students age 26 years and older
studied more hours (mean 11-15 hours) than the younger students. Female students
studied more hours (mean 6-10 hours) than male students. Students who identified
themselves as “other” racial or ethnic group studied more hours (11-15 hours) than
American Indians, Asians, Blacks, Caucasians, or Hispanics. Other than work time,
none of these differences was significant.
86
Table 13
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Time (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
3.58
1.748
26
Junior
3.84
1.711
170
Senior
4.04
1.711
199
Full-time
3.94
1.703
373
Part-time
3.71
1.782
28
2.00-2.49
4.12
1.965
17
2.50-2.99
3.91
1.507
44
3.00-3.49
3.84
1.730
118
3.50-4.00
3.97
1.722
226
18-21
3.70
1.611
122
22-25
3.96
1.708
126
26+
4.06
1.765
154
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
Age
________________________________________________________________
(Table 13 continues)
87
(Table 13 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Gender
Male
3.87
1.325
23
Female
3.93
1.727
375
American Indian
4.50
.707
10
Asian
4.35
1.998
26
African American
4.07
1.562
28
Caucasian
3.92
1.707
324
Hispanic
3.20
1.528
0
Other
4.91
1.514
11
0
4.40
1.747
127
1-5
3.83
1.595
37
6-10
3.61
1.630
59
11-15
3.74
1.781
35
16-20
3.65
1.636
46
21-25
3.65
1.567
46
26-30
3.00
.894
11
More than 30
4.00
1.844
41
Race/Ethnic Group
Work time
*1 = 0 hours, 2 = 1-5 hours, 3 = 6-10 hours, 4 = 11-15 hours, 5 = 16-20 hours,
6 = 21-25 hours, 7 = 26-30 hours, and 8 = 30 or more hours.
88
Table 14
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable of Study Time
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
395
398
7.326
1151.566
1158.892
2.442
2.915
.838
.474
Enrollment status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
1
397
398
1.335
1158.410
1159.744
1.335
2.918
.457
.499
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
391
394
1.794
1147.360
1149.154
.587
2.934
.204
.894
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2
396
398
8.872
1146.562
1155.434
4.436
2.895
1.532
.217
1
394
395
.087
1147.933
1148.020
.087
2.914
.030
.863
H.S. GPA
Age
Gender
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Race
Between groups
5
28.137
5.627
1.962
.083
Within groups
392 1124.164
2.868
Total
397 1152.302
________________________________________________________________
(Table 14 continues)
89
(Table 14 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
Work time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
7
393
400
52.709
828.069
836.723
7.530
2.107
2.666*
.010
*p<.05
The next subsidiary research question under research question four reads: Is there a
significant difference in total study score between nursing students who differ by age,
gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement?
Several one-way
univariate analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between the
independent variables and the dependent variable of study score. Results are reported
in Table 15 and 16. Table 15 included the means and standard deviations of the
variables, while Table 16 includes the remaining ANOVA results for the variables. Of all
the independent variables, only study time, work time, and age were significant, thus
there was a difference in total study score for participants who studied many or few
hours, those who worked many or few hours, and those who were younger or older.
Participants who had the highest study score (mean 262.93 studied more than 30 hours
per week F = 8.227, p<.05, η2 =.000. The Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to
determine which study time categories were significantly different. Results revealed that
those students who studied 0 hours per week were significantly different in total study
score than those who studied more than 30 hours per week. Also, those students who
90
studied 1-5 hours per week were significantly different in total study score than those
who studied 21-25 hours per week. Those students who studied 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20
hours per week were significantly different in total study score than those who studied
more than 30 hours per week.
Participants who had the highest study score (mean 243.0) worked more than 30
hours per week F = 2.462. p<.05, η2 =.018. The Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted
to determine which work time categories were significantly different. Results revealed
that those students who worked 0 hours, 11-15 hours, and 21-25 hours per week were
significantly different in total study score than those who worked 26-30 hours per week.
Students who had the highest study score (mean 239.56) were age 26 years and
older F = 3.990, p<.05, η2 = .019. the Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to
determine which age categories were significantly different. Results revealed that those
students who were age 22-25 years were significantly different in total study score than
those who were age 26 years and older.
Senior nursing students had a higher total study score (mean 237.08) than did
sophomore or junior students. Full-time students had a higher study score (mean
239.20) than did part-time students. Nursing students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 had
a higher study score (mean 238.91) than did students with a higher H.S. GPA. Female
nursing students had a higher study score (mean 236.05) than did male students. Black
students had a higher study score (mean 244.05) than did Asian, American Indian,
Caucasian, Hispanic and other racial/ethnic group students. None of these differences
(other than study time, work time, and age) was significant.
91
Table 15
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Score (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
231.14
26.05
26
Junior
235.36
22.13
170
Senior
237.08
22.56
199
Full-time
235.74
22.62
373
Part-time
239.20
20.56
28
2.00-2.49
238.91
19.98
17
2.50-2.99
236.69
22.98
44
3.00-3.49
234.84
24.60
118
3.50-4.00
236.78
21.31
226
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
________________________________________________________________
(Table 15 continues)
92
(Table 15 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0
202.00
45.25
2
1-5
226.96
21.27
89
6-10
231.39
20.94
106
11-15
236.03
20.38
73
16-20
238.45
20.56
61
21-25
246.73
18.71
28
26-30
243.70
23.43
21
More than 30
262.93
18.39
20
18-21
236.55
20.60
122
22-25
231.23
23.05
126
26+
239.56
22.91
154
Male
235.05
20.05
23
Female
236.05
22.69
375
Age
Gender
________________________________________________________________
(Table 15 continues)
93
(Table 15 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Race/Ethnic Group
American Indian
243.00
32.52
10
Asian
240.46
21.18
26
African American
244.05
25.47
28
Caucasian
235.30
22.64
324
Hispanic
234.00
20.37
0
Other
235.00
14.68
11
0
236.83
23.93
127
1-5
234.88
18.19
37
6-10
234.65
25.46
59
11-15
241.51
19.09
35
16-20
232.25
17.40
46
21-25
236.07
21.19
46
26-30
209.75
28.09
11
More than 30
243.00
19.94
41
Work time
94
Table 16
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable of Study
Score (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
319
322
757.989
162577.70
163335.69
252.663
509.648
.496
.685
1
322
393
223.782
163120.70
163344.48
223.782
506.586
1.855
.507
3
315
318
310.971 103.657
158129.47 501.998
158440.44
.206
.892
7
314
321
25067.603
136686.61
161754.21
8.227*
.000
Enrollment status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
H.S. GPA
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Study time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3581.086
435.308
Age
Between groups
2
3970.620 1985.310
3.990*
.019
Within groups
320 159230.38
497.595
Total
322 163201.00
________________________________________________________________
(Table 16 continues)
95
(Table 16 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________Gender
Between groups
Within groups
Total
1
321
322
19.116
163181.88
163201.00
19.116
508.355
.038
.846
Between groups
Within groups
Total
5
317
322
1854.315
161049.45
162903.80
370.870
508.042
.730
.601
7
316
323
8448.000
154896.48
163344.48
1206.857
490.179
2.462*
.018
Race
Work time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
*p<.05
The next subsidiary research question under research question four reads: Is there
an association with the individual study behaviors and the independent variables of
college GPA, race, enrollment status, college classification, work time, study time,
gender, and nursing GPA? Each of the 79 study questions from the questionnaire was
analyzed with the independent variables of gender, race, college GPA, nursing GPA,
enrollment status, college classification, study time, and work time. Because of the
length of the questionnaire and the subsequent large number of cross-tabulations (632)
that were computed, only results that are significantly different are reported. Also, only
the participants who agreed or somewhat agreed with the questions are reported,
96
except for the negatively-worded questions. For these negatively-worded questions, the
disagree or somewhat disagree responses are reported.
Study behaviors and college GPA
Ten of the study behaviors compared to college GPA were significant and are
reported in Table 17. Two of the significant behaviors are study habits, five are study
strategies, and three are study attitudes. A higher percentage of participants with a
college GPA of 2.00- 2.49 put effort into studying, memorize for exams, read before
coming to class, met with a tutor, go over work, check work, and are self-motivated. A
higher percentage of students with a college GPA of 2.50-2.99 feel that studying is a top
priority, and worry about doing well on tests. A higher percentage of participants with a
college GPA of 3.00-3.49 and 3.50-4.00 study in a quiet place.
97
Table 17
Study Behaviors Associated with College GPA (N=398)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
College GPA
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-4.00
(n=5)
(n=43)
(n=186)
(n=167)
________________
_%___________
%_________
%__________
%_
_χ2 _____________
Habits
I put a lot of effort
into studying because
I am determined to
do well.
I have a fairly
quiet place to study.
Strategies
I have an effective
method for memorizing
materials for tests and
exams.
I read my textbook
before I come to class.
100
90
90
91
26.108*
60
74
87
87
17.615*
100
64
73
83
16.539*
60
48
42
33
20.691*
I meet with a tutor or
60
37
23
13
28.967*
instructor to review
material.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 15 continues)
98
(Table 17 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
College GPA
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-4.00
(n=5)
(n=43)
(n=186)
(n=167)
________________
_%___________
%_________
%__________
%_
_ __χ2___________
Strategies
I go over the work I’ve
100
76
85
88
17.360*
done carefully to
check the reasoning
and that it makes sense.
When I finish a piece
100
95
90
92
16.625*
80
90
87
89
18.1248*
of work, I check it
through to see if it really
meets the requirements.
Attitudes
Studying is a top
priority of mine in
college.
I don’t find it at
100
38
46
59
16.772*
all difficult to motivate
myself.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 15 continues)
99
(Table 17 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
College GPA
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-4.00
(n=5)
(n=43)
(n=186)
(n=167)
________________
_%___________
%_________
%__________
%_
________χ2 ______
Attitudes
Worrying about doing
well on tests
interferes with
my studying.
40
74
63
48
22.733*
100
Study behaviors and race
Twelve of the study behaviors compared to race were significant and are
reported in Table 18. Three of the significant behaviors are study habits,
seven are study strategies, and two are study attitudes. In order to make
reasonable cell sizes, all of the races except Caucasian were collapsed to
students of color. Compared with students of color, a higher percentage of Caucasian
participants report organizing their study time, having good time management skills,
reviewing class notes, going to the instructor when confused, and understanding class
notes. Compared with Caucasian students, a higher percentage of students of color
report planning out their week’s work in advance, taking practice tests, finding the
author’s meaning in readings, reading the textbook before coming to class, rereading
notes after class, getting themselves into the right mood before studying, and motivating
themselves to study.
Study behaviors and enrollment status
Only two study behaviors compared to enrollment status were significant and are
reported in Table 19. Both of the significant behaviors are study strategies. A higher
percentage of part-time participants take practice tests and more full-time students
review class notes.
101
Table 18
Study Behaviors Associated with Race (N=400)
________________________________________________________________
Race
Caucasian
Students of color
(n=324)
(n=75)
_______________________%____________
%
Habits
I organize my study
time carefully to
make the best use
of it.
_χ2______
87
81
13.016*
80
84
7.758*
63
84
14.530*
I take practice tests.
62
69
8.954*
When I read an
article or book, I
try to find out for
myself exactly what
the author means.
67
86
13.999*
I don’t review my
class notes during
the term in
preparation for
tests.
92
86
8.317*
I read my textbook
before I come to class.
36
53
8.370*
I usually plan out my
week’s work in
advance, either on
paper or in my head.
Study strategies
My time management
skills need to be
improved.
I go to the instructor
84
73
8.603*
when I am confused.
______________________________________________________________________
(Table 18 continues)
102
(Table 18 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Race
Caucasian
Students of color
(n=324)
(n=75)
_______________________%____________
%
χ2 ______
After class, I reread
my notes to make sure
they are legible and
that I understand
them.
37
57
11.357*
I have difficulty
understanding my
class notes when
I read them later.
18
32
8.825*
76
80
8.897*
47
66
9.460*
Study attitudes
I get myself into
the right mood
before studying.
I don’t find it difficult
to motivate myself.
Table 19
Study Behaviors Associated with Enrollment Status (N=401)
_____________________________________________________________
Enrollment Status
Full-time
Part-time
(n=373)
(n=28)
_______________
%_______________%___
_χ2______
Strategies
I take practice
tests.
I don’t review
my class notes
during the term in
preparation for tests.
62
74
7.728*
6
19
8.436*
103
Study behaviors and college classification
Three study behaviors compared to college classification were significant and are
reported in Table 20. Two of the significant behaviors are study strategies and one is a
study attitude. A higher percentage of senior participants have good time management
skills, more junior students worry, and a higher percentage of sophomore participants
outline course material.
Table 20
Study Behaviors associated with College Classification (N=401)
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
(n=26)
(n=170)
(n=199)
____________________
%__________%_________%________ χ2 __
Strategies
My time management
skills need to be improved.
When I study the readings
for this course, I outline
the material to help
me organize my thoughts.
80
73
62
16.693*
72
52
46
17.554*
60
63
54
16.758*
Attitudes
Worrying about doing
well on tests interferes
with my studying.
Study behaviors and work time
When study behaviors were compared to time spent working, six were significant
and are reported in Table 21. Two of the significant behaviors are study habits and four
104
are study attitudes. A higher percentage of participants who do not work study nursing
every day, and lie awake worrying. Participants who work 1-5 hours per week feel that
studying is a top priority, and panic if they get behind. A higher percentage of
participants who work 26-30 hours per week blame themselves if they do not learn the
material. A higher percentage of participants who work more than 30 hours per week
have a specific place to study.
Study behaviors and study time
When compared with study time, 27 study behaviors were significant and are
reported in Table 22. Five of the significant behaviors are study habits, 18 are study
strategies, and 4 are study attitudes. A higher percentage of participants who do not
study plan out their week’s work, feel they study too much for what they are learning,
cram before an exam, procrastinate, and feel lazy or bored. A higher percentage of
participants who study 16-20 hours per week reflect on their learning. Participants who
study 21-25 hours per week study nursing everyday, reread their notes, and report
worrying that interferes with studying. A higher percentage of participants who study
more than 30 hours per week organize their study time, work steadily through the term,
stick to studying until completed, relate ideas to other courses, review class notes, edit
notes after class, space out their studying, read textbook before coming to class, test
themselves, make charts, diagrams, or tables, change studying to fit the instructor’s
style, and feel that studying is a top priority. Participants who do not study and those
who study 21-25 hours per week study where they can concentrate. A higher
percentage of participants who study 16-20 hours per week, 26-30 hours per week, and
more than 30 hours per week put a lot of effort into studying. A higher percentage of
105
Table 21
Study Behaviors Associated with Work Time (N=402)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hrs Worked
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=127)
(n=37)
(n=59)
(n=35)
(n=46)
(n=46)
(n=11)
(n=41)
______
%_____ %_____ %______ %_______ %_______ %_______ %_________ %_____ χ2 ___
Habits
I study nursing
everyday.
I have a
specific place
to study nursing.
70
57
49
66
50
61
30
64
35.937*
38
47
40
51
25
24
10
58
34.433*
93
97
80
86
25
85
60
61
48.355*
Attitudes
Studying is a
top priority
of mine in
college.
It is my own
80
90
86
77
76
89
100
72
34.786*
fault if I don’t
learn the material
in this course.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 21 continues)
106
(Table 21 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hrs Worked
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=127)
(n=37)
(n=59)
(n=35)
(n=46)
(n=46)
(n=11)
(n=41)
______
%_____ %_____ %______ %_______ %_______ %_______ %_________ %_____ _χ2__
Attitudes
I often seem
to panic if I
get behind with
my work.
I often lie
awake worrying
about work I
think I won’t be
able to do.
77
84
73
66
64
67
50
64
34.296*
63
41
43
43
47
52
50
51
36.611*
107
participants who study 21-25 hours per week, 26-30 hours per week, and more than 30
hours per week take notes in class. A higher percentage of participants who study 2630 hours per week and more than 30 hours per week work hard to do well. A higher
percentage of participants who do not study, participants who study 6-10 hours per
week, 11-15 hours per week, and more than 30 hours per week place importance on
learning course material.
Study behaviors and gender
Five study behaviors compared to gender were significant and are reported in Table
23. One of the significant behaviors is a study habit, and four are study strategies. A
higher percentage of female than male participants know several good relaxation
techniques, make charts, diagrams, or tables, ask another student for help, and feel
they study too much. A higher percentage of male than female participants space out
studying over several days.
Study behaviors and nursing GPA
Eighteen study questions compared to nursing GPA were significant and are
reported in Table 24. Eight of the significant behaviors are study habits,
five are study strategies and five are study attitudes. A higher percentage of participants
with an A nursing GPA have an effective method for memorizing. A higher percentage
of participants with an A- nursing GPA stick to studying until completed. A higher
percentage of participants with a B+ nursing GPA have a specific time to study and
keep track of their progress. A higher percentage of participants with a B nursing GPA
put a lot of effort into studying. A higher percentage of participants with a B- nursing
GPA feel that studying is a top priority. A higher percentage of participants with a C+
108
Table 22
Study Behaviors Associated with Study Time (N=400)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %_____________ χ2__
Habits
I organize my
study time
carefully to make
the best use of it.
I work steadily
through the term
rather than leave
it all until the last
minute.
0
76
81
90
90
96
95
100
0
52
70
69
77
85
76
100
46.374*
81.909*
I put a lot of
50
71
91
99
100
96
100
100
131.778*
effort into
studying because
I am determined
to do well.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
109
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %____________ χ2___
Habits
I usually
plan out my
week’s work
in advance,
either on paper
or in my head.
I study too
much for what I
am learning.
100
100
69
11
82
18
80
84
25
28
89
41
95
90
38
37
31.943*
46.685*
Strategies
I usually cram
before an exam.
100
75
77
59
52
44
48
30
64.519*
I put things off
until the last
minute.
100
59
52
45
30
26
19
5
81.420*
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
110
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %___________ χ2 ____
Strategies
I study
nursing
every day.
I stick to
studying until
it is completed.
0
36
52
69
72
89
86
85
118.260*
50
42
48
56
54
74
71
85
56.814*
92
89
95
95
I usually
100
study in a place
where I can
concentrate on
my course work.
87
95
100
33.746*
I often feel so
50
47
43
39
25
15
19
0
58.090*
lazy or bored
when I study for
this class that I
quit before I finish
what I planned to do.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
111
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %____________ χ2___
Strategies
I try to relate
50
ideas I come
across to those
in other courses
whenever possible.
When I am
50
reading, I stop
to reflect on what
I am trying to learn
from it.
I don’t review
my class notes
during the term
in preparation
for tests.
50
85
86
92
84
89
86
95
38.658*
71
68
66
85
78
76
80
46.767*
8
4
14
7
10
10
0
40.293*
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
112
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %____________ χ2 ___
Strategies
I look my
notes over and
edit them after
class.
0
22
33
41
48
46
67
70
38.964*
I space out
my studying
for an exam
over four to
seven days.
0
31
50
58
65
57
52
70
44.059*
I read my
textbook
before coming
to class.
0
28
40
37
50
54
38
75
57.078*
93
98
100
100
100
74.180*
I take notes
in nursing
class.
50
98
98
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
113
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %_____________ χ2__
Strategies
I test myself
50
by asking
sample questions.
I make
50
simple charts,
diagrams, or tables
to help me organize
course material.
I try to
0
change the way I
study to fit the
course requirements
and the instructor’s
teaching style.
64
70
73
72
79
57
80
33.723*
42
40
35
52
54
48
70
33.723*
79
32.631*
77
76
76
82
75
67
After class, I
0
28
38
38
45
64
62
60
43.551*
reread my notes
to make sure they
are legible and that
I understand them.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
114
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %_____________ χ2__
Strategies
I test myself
50
on important topics
until I understand
them completely.
66
76
76
73
89
72
95
39.936*
88
93
97
93
95
100
99.504*
Attitudes
Studying is a
top priority of
mine in college.
50
73
I work hard
50
94
95
99
98
96
100
100
89.141*
to do well in
this class even
if I don’t like what
we are doing.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 22 continues)
115
(Table 22 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Study Time
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
More than 30
(n=2) (n=89) (n=106)
(n=73)
(n=61)
(n=28)
(n=21)
(n=20)
______
%_____%_____ %_______ %_______%_______ %_______%___________ %_____________ χ2__
Attitudes
It is
important for
me to learn
the course
material in
this class.
100
98
100
100
98
96
95
100
Worrying
50
about doing well
on tests interferes
with my studying.
56
59
66
48
85
43
42
34.062*
44.071*
116
Table 23
Study Behaviors Associated with Gender (N=398)
________________________________________________________________
Gender
_____________
Habits
I study too
much.
Male
Female
(n=23)
(n=375)
_ %__________%_____________ χ2 ________________
22
23
16.033*
61
71
8.832*
I space out my
studying for an
exam over four
to seven days.
65
50
8.161*
I make simple
charts, diagrams,
or tables.
22
46
12.123*
When I can’t
understand the
material in this
course, I ask another
student for help.
77
89
7.937*
Strategies
I know several
good relaxation
techniques.
nursing GPA meet with a tutor, and report that worrying interferes with studying. A
higher percentage of participants with a C nursing GPA plan out their work in advance,
study with music or television on, work hard to do well, have confidence that they can
understand complex material. A higher percentage of participants with a C- nursing
GPA report good time management skills, identify main ideas, understand class notes,
and value the work they are doing. A higher percentage of participants with an A, A-, B-,
117
and C nursing GPA work steadily through the term. A higher percentage of participants
with a C+ and C nursing GPA coordinate short term and long term planning.
The next subsidiary question under research question four reads: Is there a
significant difference in self-regulated learning score between nursing students who
differ by age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? Several oneway univariate analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between
the independent variables and the dependent variable of self-regulated learning. Again,
since additional independent variables were measured to the questionnaire, they were
also added to this analysis. Results are reported in Table 25 and 26. Table 25 includes
the means and standard deviations of the variables, while Table 26 includes the
remaining ANOVA statistics for the variables. Of all the independent variables, only
study time and work time were significant, thus there was a difference in self-regulated
learning in participants who studied many hours or few hours and in participants who
worked many or few hours. Students who had the highest self-regulated learning score
(M = 206.3) studied more than 30 hours per week F = 7.998, p<.05, η2 =.000. The
Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to determine which study time categories were
significantly different. Results revealed that those students who studied 0 hours, 6-10
hours, 11-15 hours, and 16-20 hours were significantly different in total self-regulated
learning score than those who studied more than 30 hours. Also, those students who
studied 1-5 hours were significantly different in total self-regulated learning score than
those who studied 21-25 hours and more than 30 hours.
118
Table 24
Study Behaviors Associated with Nursing GPA (N=401)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
(n=98)
(n=65)
(n=85)
(n=110)
(n=28)
(n=11)
(n=4)
_____________
%_____ %______ %_____ %_____ %______ %______ %_____________ χ2 ______
Habits
I work steadily through 75
the term rather than
leave it all until the
last minute.
I put a lot of effort
89
into studying, because
I am determined to
do well.
75
70
62
75
55
75
30.748*
92
91
93
89
73
75
39.450*
79
78
64
100
37.228*
44
26
I usually plan out my
84
week’s work in advance,
either on paper or in
my head.
88
I usually study with
music or the TV on.
35
34
37
73
46
75
28.991*
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 24 continues)
119
(Table 24 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
(n=98)
(n=65)
(n=85)
(n=110)
(n=28)
(n=11)
(n=4)
_____________
%_____ %______ %_____ %_____ %______ %______ %_____________ χ2 ______
I have a specific
time to study
nursing.
34
41
49
60
73
I stick to
studying until it is
completed.
53
62
60
I coordinate
short term with
long term planning
using the syllabus
and a calendar.
82
86
90
Habits
My time
management skills
need to be
improved.
43
42
77
36
0
25
28.289*
79
100
75
45.243*
48
57
36
50
30.383*
77
82
100
100
29.660*
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 24 continues)
120
(Table 24 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
(n=98)
(n=65)
(n=85)
(n=110)
(n=28)
(n=11)
(n=4)
_____________
%_____ %______ %_____ %_____ %______ %______ %_____________χ2 _______
Strategies
I have trouble
20
22
26
21
43
27
75
31.288*
identifying the main
ideas when I read.
I have an effective
method for
memorizing materials
for tests and exams.
88
78
74
72
67
55
75
33.591*
I meet with a tutor
or instructor to review
material.
12
16
19
23
33
73
50
55.934*
I am able to keep
track of my progress
in nursing courses.
97
89
98
87
82
82
75
30.636*
I have difficulty
9
24
25
20
39
18
25
34.172*
understanding my
class notes when I
read them later.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 24 continues)
121
(Table 24 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
(n=98)
(n=65)
(n=85)
(n=110)
(n=28)
(n=11)
(n=4)
_____________
%_____ %______ %_____ %_____ %______ %______ %____________ χ2________
Attitudes
Studying is a top
priority of mine
in college.
I work hard to
do well in this
class even if
I don’t like what we
are doing.
85
84
91
90
96
73
75
28.351*
98
97
94
98
93
91
100
31.081*
I’m confident I
95
95
93
88
79
64
100
44.637*
can understand the
most complex
material presented
by the instructor
in this class.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Table 24 continues)
122
(Table 24 continued)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
(n=98)
(n=65)
(n=85)
(n=110)
(n=28)
(n=11)
(n=4)
_____________
%_____ %______ %_____ %_____ %______ %______ %____________χ2________
Attitudes
I often find myself
wondering whether
the work I am doing
here is really
worthwhile.
Worrying about
doing well on
tests interferes
with my studying.
30
27
43
41
46
64
25
28.842*
41
53
55
65
86
91
75
39.194*
123
Students who had the highest self-regulated learning score (M = 189.1) worked
more than 30 hours per week F = 2.836, p<.05, η2 =.007. The Scheffe’ post hoc test
was conducted to determine which work time categories were significantly different.
Results revealed that those students who worked 0 hours were significantly different in
total self-regulated learning score than those who worked 26-30 hours. Also, those
students who worked 26-30 hours were significantly different in total self-regulated
learning score than those who worked more than 30 hours.
Senior nursing students had a higher self-regulated learning score (M = 185.34) than
did sophomore or junior students. Full-time students had a higher self-regulated
learning score (M = 184.42) than did part-time students. Nursing students with a H.S.
GPA of 2.00-2.49 had a higher self-regulated learning score (M = 186.07) than did
students with a higher H.S. GPA. Students age 26 years and older had a higher selfregulated learning score (M = 186.88) than did the younger students. Female nursing
students had a higher self-regulated learning score (M = 184.426) than did male
students. American Indian students had a higher self-regulated learning score (M =
191.00) than did Asian, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic and other racial/ethnic group
students. None of these differences (other than study time and work time) was
significant.
124
Table 25
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Regulated Learning Score (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
180.42
22.16
26
Junior
183.91
18.69
170
Senior
185.34
19.18
199
Full-time
184.42
19.02
373
Part-time
183.90
20.29
28
2.00-2.49
186.07
15.78
17
2.50-2.99
184.42
19.20
44
3.00-3.49
184.40
21.04
118
3.50-4.00
184.75
18.17
226
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
________________________________________________________________
(Table 25 continues)
125
(Table 25 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0
156.00
42.42
2
1-5
177.18
18.44
89
6-10
180.65
17.75
106
11-15
184.67
17.07
73
16-20
185.92
17.03
61
21-25
194.00
14.93
28
26-30
191.00
20.82
21
More than 30
206.35
17.05
20
18-21
185.03
17.92
122
22-25
180.90
19.43
126
26+
186.88
19.37
154
Male
183.70
17.58
23
Female
184.46
19.21
375
Age
Gender
________________________________________________________________
(Table 25 continues)
126
(Table 25 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Race/Ethnic Group
American Indian
191.00
25.45
10
Asian
186.84
17.53
26
African American
190.90
22.09
28
Caucasian
183.90
19.15
324
Hispanic
184.31
18.11
0
Other
182.10
14.89
11
0
186.00
20.10
127
1-5
183.84
15.29
37
6-10
182.72
22.06
59
11-15
188.85
16.34
35
16-20
180.87
13.65
46
21-25
184.23
17.20
46
26-30
159.87
23.82
11
More than 30
189.09
18.38
41
Work time
127
Table 26
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable of SelfRegulated Learning (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
3
568.496
Within groups
389 120265.22
Total
392 120833.72
189.499
366.662
.517
.671
5.525
120833.94
120839.47
5.525
365.057
.015
.902
3
385
388
37.298
117288.09
117325.39
12.433
362.000
.991
.991
Between groups
Within groups
Total
7
391
398
17698.487
102112.69
119811.17
2528.355
316.138
7.998*
.000
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2
390
392
2139.736
118611.23
120750.96
1069.868
360.520
2.968
.053
Enrollment status
Between groups
1
Within groups
392
Total
393
H.S. GPA
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Study time
Age
Gender
Between groups
1
11.084
11.084
.030
.862
Within groups
388 120739.88 365.878
Total
389 120750.96
________________________________________________________________
(Table 26 continues)
128
(Table 26 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
Race
Between groups
Within groups
Total
5
386
391
1170.566
119209.97
120380.53
234.113
366.800
.638
7
386
393
6956.984
127323.81
132541.59
993.855
329.854
2836*
.671
Work time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
.007
*p<.05
To summarize research question four, students who did not work reported the
highest study time. Participants who had the highest study score reported that they
studied and worked more than 30 hours per week. More participants with lower college
GPAs reported that they put effort into studying, memorize for exams, read before
coming to class, meet with a tutor, go over work, check work, are self-motivated, feel
that studying is a top priority, and worry about doing well on tests. More participants with
higher college GPAs reported that they study in a quiet place. More Caucasian
participants reported that they organize their study time, have good time management
skills, review class notes, go to the instructor when confused, and understand class
notes. More students of color students reported that they plan out their week’s work in
advance, take practice tests, find the author’s meaning in readings, read textbook
before coming to class, reread notes after class, get themselves into the right mood
129
before studying, and motivate themselves to study. More part-time participants reported
that they take practice tests and more full-time students review class notes. More senior
participants reported that they have good time management skills, more junior students
worry, and more sophomore participants outline course material. More participants who
do not work reported that they study nursing everyday, and lie awake worrying.
Participants who work the fewest hours per week reported that they feel studying is a
top priority, and panic if they get behind. More participants who work the most hours per
week reported that they blame themselves if they do not learn the material, and have a
specific place to study. More participants who do not study reported that they plan out
their week’s work, feel they study too much for what they are learning, cram before an
exam, procrastinate, and feel lazy or bored. More participants who study a moderate
number of hours per week reported that they reflect on their learning, study nursing
everyday, reread their notes, and report worrying that interferes with studying. More
participants who study the most hours per week reported that they organize their study
time; work steadily through the term; stick to studying until completed; relate ideas to
other courses; review class notes; edit notes after class; space out their studying; read
textbook before coming to class; test themselves; make chart, diagrams, or tables;
change studying to fit the instructor’s style; and feel that studying is a top priority. More
female than male participants reported that they know several good relaxation
techniques, make charts, diagrams, or tables, ask another student for help, and feel
they study too much. More male than female participants reported that they space out
studying over several days. More participants with an A nursing GPA reported that they
have an effective method for memorizing, and stick to studying until completed. More
130
participants with a B nursing GPA reported that they have a specific time to study, keep
track of their progress, put a lot of effort into studying, and feel that studying is a top
priority. More participants with a C nursing GPA reported that they meet with a tutor,
and report that worrying interferes with studying, plan out their work in advance, study
with music or television on, work hard to do well, have confidence that they can
understand complex material, report good time management skills, identify main ideas,
and understand class notes, value the work they are doing, coordinate short term and
long term planning. Students who had the highest self-regulated learning score reported
that they studied more than 30 hours per week and worked more than 30 hours per
week.
Research Question Five: Academic Achievement
Research question five in the present research reads: Are there significant
differences in college academic achievement between nursing students who differ by
age, gender, racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? In this section, results
of college GPA and nursing GPA as dependent variables are discussed.
The first subsidiary question under this research question reads: Is there a significant
difference in college GPA between nursing students who differ by age, gender,
racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? Several one-way univariate
analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between the independent
variables and the dependent variable of college GPA. Again, since additional
independent variables were measured in the questionnaire, they were also added to
these analyses. Results are reported in Table 27 and 28. Table 27 includes the means
and standard deviations of the variables, while Table 28 includes the remaining ANOVA
131
statistics for the variables. Note that a college GPA of 3.5 or above was coded 1 on the
questionnaire, 3.00-3.49 was coded a 2, 2.50-2.99 was coded a 3, and 2.00-2.49 was
coded a 4. Thus a higher college GPA actually appears as a lower score when
calculating the mean. Of all the independent variables, only college classification and
H.S. GPA were significant, thus there was a difference in college GPA in participants
who were sophomores, juniors, or seniors and between participants who had a high
H.S. GPA and a low H.S. GPA. Sophomores F = 3.487, p<.05, η2 =.016 reported a
higher college GPA (M = 2.50-2.99) than did the juniors or seniors. The Scheffe’ post
hoc test was conducted to determine which college classification categories were
significantly different. Results revealed that those students who were sophomores were
significantly different in college GPA than those who were unclassified students.
Students who reported a H.S. GPA of 2.50-2.99 F = 22.184, p<.05, η2 =.000 reported
the highest college GPA (M = 2.50-2.99). The Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to
determine which H.S. GPA categories were significantly different. Results revealed that
those students who had a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 were significantly different in college
GPA than those who had a H.S. GPA of 2.50-2.99. Those students who had a H.S.
GPA of 2.50-2.99 were significantly different in college GPA than those who had a H.S.
GPA of 3.50-4.00. Also, those students who had a H.S. GPA of 3.00-3.49 were
significantly different in college GPA than those who had a H.S. GPA of 3.50-4.00.
Although the differences were not significant, full-time students had a higher college
GPA (M = 2.50-2.99) than did part-time students. Nursing students who did not study
reported a higher college GPA (M = 2.50-2.99) than did students who studied. Students
age 22-25 years had a higher college GPA (M = 2.50-2.99) than did the other age
132
students. Female nursing students had a higher college GPA (M = 2.50-2.99) than did
male students. American Indian students had a higher college GPA (M = 3.00-3.49)
than did Asian, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic and other racial/ethnic group students.
Nursing students who worked 21-25 hours per week reported the highest college GPA
(M = 2.50-2.99). None of these differences (other than college classification and H.S.
GPA) were significant.
The next subsidiary question under research question five reads: Is there a significant
difference in nursing GPA between nursing students who differ by age, gender,
racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? Several one-way univariate
analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between the independent
variables and the dependent variable of nursing GPA. Results are reported in Table 29
and 30. Table 29 includes the means and standard deviations of the variables, while
Table 30 includes the remaining ANOVA statistics for the variables. Note that a nursing
GPA of A was coded 1 on the questionnaire, A- was coded a 2, B+ was coded a 3, B
was coded a 4, B- was coded a 5, C+ was coded a 6, C was coded a 7, and C- was
coded an 8. Thus a higher nursing GPA actually appears as a lower score when
calculating the mean. Of all the independent variables, only college classification and
H.S. GPA were significant, thus there was a difference in nursing GPA in participants
133
Table 27
Means and Standard Deviations for College GPA (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
3.11
.86
26
Junior
3.22
.66
170
Senior
3.33
.70
199
Full-time
3.28
.70
373
Part-time
3.35
.67
28
2.00-2.49
3.41
.79
17
2.50-2.99
2.86
.70
44
3.00-3.49
3.00
.69
118
3.50-4.00
3.51
.60
226
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
________________________________________________________________
(Table 27 continues)
134
(Table 27 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0
3.00
.00
2
1-5
3.32
.61
89
6-10
3.20
.67
106
11-15
3.30
.74
73
16-20
3.31
.82
61
21-25
3.32
.66
28
26-30
3.33
.73
21
More than 30
3.40
.68
20
18-21
3.31
.73
122
22-25
3.20
.68
126
26+
3.33
.68
154
Male
3.52
.74
23
Female
3.27
.69
375
Age
Gender
________________________________________________________________
(Table 27 continues)
135
(Table 27 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Race/Ethnic Group
American Indian
2.50
.70
19
Asian
3.17
.72
26
African American
3.17
.66
28
Caucasian
3.30
.70
324
Hispanic
3.37
.57
0
Other
3.00
.89
11
0
3.26
.67
127
1-5
3.45
.69
37
6-10
3.27
.76
59
11-15
3.20
.76
35
16-20
3.31
.67
46
21-25
3.06
.67
46
26-30
3.36
.67
11
More than 30
3.48
.67
41
Work time
*1 = 3.5 or above, 2 = 3.00-3.49, 3 = 2.50-2.99, 4 = 2.00-2.49.
136
Table 28
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable of
College GPA (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
393
396
5.052
189.785
194.836
1.684
.483
3.487*
.016
1
395
396
.148
195.117
195.264
.148
.494
.299
.585
3
391
394
28.087
165.012
193.099
9.362
.422
22.184*
.000
Between groups
Within groups
Total
7
388
395
1.460
191.722
193.182
.209
.494
,422
.889
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2
394
396
1.351
193.914
195.264
.675
.492
1.372
.255
Enrollment status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
H.S. GPA
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Study time
Age
Gender
Between groups
1
1.246
1.246
2.526
.113
Within groups
392 193.345
.493
Total
393 194.591
________________________________________________________________
(Table 28 continues)
137
(Table 28 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
Race
Between groups
Within groups
Total
5
390
395
3.017
191.738
194.755
.603
.492
1.227
.295
7
390
397
5.441
189.905
195.347
.777
.487
1.596
.135
Work time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
*p<.05
who were sophomores, juniors, or seniors and between participants who had a high
H.S. GPA and a low H.S. GPA. Seniors F = 3.026, p<.05, η2 =.029 reported the highest
nursing GPA (M = A-). The Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to determine which
college classification categories were significantly different. Results revealed that those
students who were juniors were significantly different in nursing GPA than those who
were unclassified students. Students who had a H.S. GPA of 3.50-4.00 F = 6.027,
p<.05, η2 =.001 reported the highest nursing GPA (M = A-). The Scheffe’ post hoc test
was conducted to determine which H.S. GPA categories were significantly different.
Results revealed that those students who had a H.S. GPA of 2.50-2.99 were
significantly different in nursing GPA than those who had a H.S. GPA of 3.50-4.00.
Full-time students had a higher nursing GPA (M = A-) than did part-time students.
Nursing students who did not study reported a higher nursing GPA (M = A) than did
138
students who studied. Students age 26 years and older had a higher nursing GPA (M =
A-) than did the other age students. Male nursing students had a higher nursing GPA (M
= A-) than did male students. Hispanic students had a higher nursing GPA (M = A-) than
did American Indian, Asian, Black, Caucasian and other racial/ethnic group students.
Nursing students who worked more than 30 hours per week reported the highest
nursing GPA (M = A-). Other than college classification and H.S. GPA, none of these
differences were significant.
To summarize research question five, sophomores reported the highest college
GPA. Students who reported a H.S. GPA of 2.50-2.99 reported the highest college GPA
(M = 2.50-2.99). Seniors reported the highest nursing GPA. Students who had a H.S.
GPA of 3.50-4.00 reported the highest nursing GPA (M = B+).
139
Table 29
Means and Standard Deviations for Nursing GPA (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
2.92
1.23
26
Junior
3.02
1.43
170
Senior
2.81
1.47
199
Full-time
2.88
1.45
373
Part-time
2.96
1.37
28
2.00-2.49
2.71
1.57
17
2.50-2.99
3.59
1.43
44
3.00-3.49
3.05
1.41
118
3.50-4.00
2.66
1.41
226
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
________________________________________________________________
(Table 29 continues)
140
(Table 29 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0
1.50
.70
2
1-5
2.70
1.44
89
6-10
3.21
1.45
106
11-15
2.89
1.47
73
16-20
2.98
1.40
61
21-25
2.78
1.39
28
26-30
2.57
1.28
21
More than 30
2.30
1.30
20
18-21
3.02
1.44
122
22-25
2.99
1.44
126
26+
2.69
1.43
154
Male
2.83
1.49
23
Female
2.89
1.44
375
Age
Gender
________________________________________________________________
(Table 29 continues)
141
(Table 29 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Race/Ethnic Group
American Indian
4.50
.70
10
Asian
3.41
1.83
26
African American
3.07
1.56
28
Caucasian
2.83
1.42
324
Hispanic
2.80
1.38
0
Other
3.00
1.34
11
0
2.98
1.43
127
1-5
2.70
1.37
37
6-10
2.90
1.57
59
11-15
2.97
1.31
35
16-20
2.80
1.40
46
21-25
3.07
1.54
46
26-30
2.91
1.44
11
More than 30
2.56
1.43
41
Work time
*1 = A, 2 = A-, 3 = B+, 4 = B, 5 = B-, 6 = C+, 7 = C, 8 = C- .
142
Table 30
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable-Nursing GPA
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
396
399
18.732
817.205
835.938
6.244
2.064
3.026*
.029
1
398
399
.189
836.521
836.710
.189
2.102
.090
.764
3
392
395
36.571
792.851
829.422
12.190
2.023
6.027*
.001
Between groups
Within groups
Total
7
391
398
27.837
800.859
828.697
3.977
2.048
1.942
.062
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2
397
399
9.480
825.998
835.478
4.740
2.081
2.278
.104
Enrollment status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
H.S. GPA
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Study time
Age
Gender
Between groups
1
.082
.082
.039
.843
Within groups
395 830.588
2.103
Total
396 830.670
________________________________________________________________
(Table 30 continues)
143
(Table 30 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
Race
Between groups
Within groups
Total
5
393
398
12.217
823.247
835.464
2.443
2.095
1.166
.325
7
393
400
8.654
828.069
836.723
1.236
2.107
.587
.767
Work time
Between groups
Within groups
Total
*p<.05
Research Question Six: Work Time
In the research proposal, work time was not originally a dependent variable.
However, since it was included in the questionnaire, it was decided to add this to the
statistical analysis. Research question six in the present study reads: Is there a
significant difference in work time between nursing students who differ by age, gender,
racial/ethnic heritage, or high school achievement? Several one-way univariate
analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences between the independent
variables and the dependent variable of work time. Again, since additional independent
variables were measured in the questionnaire, they were also added to this analysis.
Results are reported in Table 31 and 32. Table 31 includes the means and standard
deviations of the variables, while Table 32 includes the remaining ANOVA statistics for
the variables. Of all the independent variables, only age and enrollment status were
significant, thus there was a difference in work time in participants who were older or
144
younger and in participants who were part time or full time students. Students who were
in the 26 years and older age range F = 5.013, p<.05, η2 =.007 worked the most hours
(M = 11-15 hours). The Scheffe’ post hoc test was conducted to determine which age
categories were significantly different. Results revealed that those students who were
18-21 years old were significantly different in work time than those who were 26 years
and older. Part-time students F = 7.714, p<.05, η2 =.006 worked the most hours (M =
11-15 hours).
Sophomore students worked more hours (M = 6-10 hours) than did junior or senior
students. Nursing students who reported a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 worked more hours
(6-10 hours) than did students who reported a higher H.S. GPA. Nursing students who
studied 1-5 hours per week worked the most hours per week (M = 11-15 hours). Male
nursing students worked more hours (M = 11-15 hours) than did female students. Black
students reported working more hours (M = 11-15 hours) than did American Indian,
Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic and other racial/ethnic group students. Other than age and
enrollment status, none of these differences were significant.
145
Table 31
Means and Standard Deviations of Work Time (N=407)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
College Classification
Sophomore
3.88
2.42
26
Junior
3.60
2.25
170
Senior
3.48
2.43
199
Full-time
3.47
2.33
373
Part-time
4.75
2.57
28
2.00-2.49
3.82
2.43
17
2.50-2.99
3.64
2.38
44
3.00-3.49
3.66
2.51
118
3.50-4.00
3.47
2.30
226
Enrollment Status
H.S. GPA
________________________________________________________________
(Table 31 continues)
146
(Table 31 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0
3.00
.00
2
1-5
4.09
2.32
89
6-10
3.66
2.30
106
11-15
3.52
2.29
73
16-20
3.20
2.57
61
21-25
3.07
2.30
28
26-30
2.86
2.43
21
More than 30
3.35
2.60
20
18-21
3.12
2.04
122
22-25
3.42
2.27
126
26+
4.00
2.62
154
Male
4.26
2.49
23
Female
3.52
2.36
375
Age
Gender
________________________________________________________________
(Table 31 continues)
147
(Table 31 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Variable
M*
SD
n
________________________________________________________________
Race/Ethnic Group
American Indian
2.00
1.41
10
Asian
3.24
2.58
26
Black
4.14
2.92
28
Caucasian
3.55
2.29
324
Hispanic
3.56
2.51
0
Other
2.64
2.42
11
*1 = 0 hours, 2 = 1-5 hours, 3 = 6-10 hours, 4 = 11-15 hours, 5 = 16-20 hours,
6 = 21-25 hours, 7 = 26-30 hours, 8 = more than 30 hours.
148
Table 32
Summary of One-way Analysis of Variance using the Dependent Variable of Work Time
(N=407)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
College classification
Between groups
Within groups
Total
3
397
400
4.277
2244.476
2248.753
1.426
5.654
.252
.860
Enrollment status
Between groups
Within groups
Total
1
399
400
42.727
2210.145
2252.873
42.727
5.539
7.714*
.006
3
393
396
4.361
2227.377
2231.738
1.454
5.668
.257
.857
Between groups
Within groups
Total
7
392
399
52.786
2199.892
2252.678
7.541
5.612
1.344
.228
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2
398
400
55.414
2199.684
2255.097
27.707
5.527
5.013*
.007
H.S. GPA
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Study time
Age
Gender
Between groups
1
11.895
11.895
2.107
.147
Within groups
396 2236.035
5.647
Total
397 2247.930
________________________________________________________________
(Table 32 continues)
149
(Table 32 continued)
________________________________________________________________
df
SS
MS
F
η2
________________________________________________________________
Race
Between groups
Within groups
Total
5
394
399
25.513
2207.584
2233.098
5.103
5.603
.911
.474
*p<.05
Summary of results
The majority of the participants were female and Caucasian. Approximately one-third
of the participants were in each of the three age ranges. Just over half of the
participants reported a H.S. GPA of 3.5 and above. Almost half of the participants
reported a college GPA in the 3.00-3.49 range. Just over half of the nursing students
reported a nursing GPA in the B range. Approximately half of the participants reported
studying ten hours or less per week. Just over half of the nursing students reported
working ten hours or less per week.
The mean total study score was fairly high. Participants answered the majority of the
study questions appropriately (meaning that the participants answered either agree or
somewhat agree to the study questions, except for the negatively-worded questions
which they should answer disagree or somewhat disagree). The range of the total study
score was 147-294, with a mean of 235.95. The mode was 234.00. The mean of 235.95
fell in the neutral range, meaning that the typical participant somewhat disagreed or
somewhat agreed with most of the questions. The students answered 81% of the study
150
questions appropriately (percentage of study questions that the participants agreed or
somewhat agreed with).
Seven of the study habits questions were answered appropriately by most of the
participants, while four of them were answered by the fewest participants. Fifteen of the
study strategy questions were answered appropriately by most of the participants, while
eight of them were answered by the fewest participants. Sixteen of the study attitude
questions were answered appropriately by most of the participants, while only three of
them were answered by the fewest participants.
The independent variables (age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, total study score, selfregulated learning score, study time, work time, college classification, and enrollment
status) were significant predictors of both college GPA and nursing GPA. However,
other variables that were not specified in this research play a measurable role in the
dependent variables.
Students who reported that they did not work reported that they studied more than
students who worked (significant). Female participants reported that they studied more
than males and full-time students reported that they studied more than part-time
students. Senior participants reported studying more than sophomores or juniors. Older
nursing students reported studying more hours than the younger students. Students
who identified themselves as other in the race/ethnic variable reported that they studied
more than other race/ethnic groups. Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 reported
that they studied more than the students with a higher H.S. GPA.
Students who had the highest study score reported that they studied (significant) and
worked (significant) more than 30 hours per week and were 26 years of age and older
151
(significant). Female students had a higher total study score than males and full-time
students had a higher total study score than part-time students. Senior participants had
a higher total study score than sophomores or juniors. Students who identified
themselves as Black had a higher study score than did the other race/ethnic groups.
Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 had a higher study score than did the students
with a higher H.S. GPA.
Students with the highest self-regulated learning score reported that they worked
more than 30 hours per week (significant). Female students had a higher self-regulated
learning score than males and full-time students had a higher self-regulated learning
score than part-time students. Students with the highest self-regulated learning score
reported that they studied more than 30 hours per week (significant). Senior participants
had a higher self-regulated learning score than sophomores or juniors. Older students
had a higher self-regulated learning score than the younger students. Students who
identified themselves as American Indian had a higher self-regulated learning score
than did the other race/ethnic groups. Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49 had a
higher self-regulated learning score than did the students with a higher H.S. GPA. The
range of total self-regulated learning score for the participants was 107-237, with a
mean of 184.39. The mode was 183. The mean of 184.39 was in the neutral range,
meaning that the typical participant somewhat disagreed or somewhat agreed with most
of the questions. The students answered 79% of the self-regulated learning questions
appropriately (percentage of self-regulated questions that the participants agreed or
somewhat agreed with). As seen in Table 5 and Table 6, goal setting and planning,
environmental structuring, seeking information, rehearsing and memorizing, keeping
152
records and monitoring, self-evaluation, reviewing records, seeking social assistance,
organizing and transforming, self-consequating, self-efficacy, self-reaction, and selfjudgment were the areas of self-regulated learning that were most frequently used by
the participants. The areas of self-regulated learning that were least frequently used by
the participants included: goal setting and planning, seeking social assistance,
organizing and transforming, reviewing records, keeping records and monitoring, and
self-efficacy.
Sophomores reported a higher college GPA than did juniors or seniors (significant).
Female nursing students reported a higher college GPA than males and full-time
students reported a higher college GPA than part-time students. Students who
identified themselves as American Indian reported a higher college GPA than did the
other race/ethnic groups. Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.50-2.99 reported a higher
college GPA than did the students with a higher H.S. GPA. Participants who did not
study reported a higher college GPA than did participants who studied. Students in the
age range of 22-25 years reported a higher college GPA than did the other age groups.
Seniors reported a higher nursing GPA than did sophomores or juniors. Male nursing
students reported a higher nursing GPA than females and full-time students reported a
higher nursing GPA than part-time students. Participants who reported that they worked
more than 30 hours per week reported the highest nursing GPA. Older nursing students
reported a higher nursing GPA than the younger students. Students with a H.S. GPA of
3.50-4.00 (significant) reported a higher nursing GPA than did the students with a lower
H.S. GPA. Participants who did not study reported a higher nursing GPA than did
153
participants who studied. Students who identified themselves as Hispanic reported a
higher nursing GPA than did the other race/ethnic groups.
Older students (significant) reported that they worked more hours than younger
students. Male students reported that they worked more hours per week than females
and part-time students (significant) reported that they worked more hours per week than
full-time students. Sophomores reported working more hours than juniors or seniors.
Nursing students who reported that they studied 1-5 hours reported that they worked
the most hours. Nursing students who reported that they worked more than 30 hours
per week reported the highest nursing GPA. Students with a H.S. GPA of 2.00-2.49
reported that they worked more hours than did the students with a lower H.S. GPA.
Students who identified themselves as Black reported that they worked more hours than
did the other race/ethnic groups.
Study behaviors associated with a higher college GPA included studying in a quiet
place. Study behaviors associated with a higher nursing GPA (A or B) included having
an effective method for memorizing, sticking to studying until completed, having a
specific time to study, keeping track of progress, putting a lot of effort into studying,
feeling that studying is a top priority, and working steadily through the term.
154
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
This research examined the relationship of study behaviors to the outcomes of
college GPA and nursing GPA. The I-E-O theoretical model included several
independent variables. Analyses were employed to look at relationships and differences
among the variables. This chapter considers the findings and discusses implications for
practice.
Sample characteristics
Sample characteristics are discussed in the following section. These include
academic characteristics (college and nursing GPA) and time commitments (study time
and work time).
College and nursing GPA
Most of the participants reported a H.S. GPA over 3.00. This was not surprising
since many colleges and universities require a minimum H.S. GPA for admission.
Female nursing students reported a higher college GPA than male nursing students.
Astin (1977) also found that female students had higher college GPAs. Sophomores
and students age 22-25 years of age reported a higher college GPA. Astin (1977) also
found that older students got better grades in college. Full-time students reported a
higher college GPA than part-time students. It is possible that the part-time students
also had other responsibilities such as family and work, which might distract them from
their college responsibilities.
Only a small, but significant percentage (11%) of the variability in college GPA could
be explained by age, study time, H.S. GPA, work time, college classification, enrollment
status, total study score, self-regulated learning score, gender, and race. This suggests
155
that while the independent variables played a measurable role in college GPA, college
achievement was largely shaped by factors not specified in this research.
Also, most of the students reported a high nursing GPA (over 3.00). This again was
not surprising since many colleges and universities require that students maintain a
minimum GPA to remain in a nursing program. Male nursing students reported a higher
nursing GPA than female nursing students. Senior participants reported the highest
nursing GPA. Participants age 26 and older reported the highest nursing GPA. Also,
full-time students reported a higher nursing GPA than did part-time students. This result
was the same as for college GPA. Again, these part-time students may have other
responsibilities that sidetrack them.
Only a small, but significant percentage of the variability (seven percent) in nursing
GPA could be explained by study time, age, gender, H.S. GPA, enrollment status, race,
college classification, total study score, self-regulated learning, and work time. As with
college GPA, this suggests that while the independent variables played a measurable
role in nursing GPA, nursing course achievement was largely shaped by factors not
specified in this research.
These results regarding college and nursing GPA are similar to what Astin (1993)
found. Astin found that study time is positively related to the academic outcomes of
retention, graduating with honors, and self-reported gains in cognitive and affective
skills. The current researcher found that study time predicted both college and nursing
GPA.
156
Study time
It was not surprising that just over 80% of the participants reported studying less
than 21 hours per week. Given a full-time semester load of 12 hours and the “rule of
thumb” of studying outside of class two hours for every one hour in class, the full-time
student would be expected to study at least 24 hours per week. However, according to
the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2006), first-year students are
spending only about 14 hours studying per week which suggests that the results of this
study are not too far from the national norm. In the current study, students in the 2.002.49 range of college GPA studied the most hours per week. This was not surprising.
These students who are struggling the most in a difficult program report putting in the
most time studying yet are not reaping the rewards of a higher GPA. C range grades for
these students may be the best that they can do. Many of these lower GPA students
may never achieve a higher GPA no matter how much they study. Another explanation
for this is that these students may not be totally honest about reporting their study time.
These results are similar to what Williamson (1935) found. He felt that an increase in
the number of study hours by students of low ability would not necessarily result in
higher scholarship. Okpala, Okpala, and Ellis (2000) also showed that students could
not improve their chances of earning good grades by merely increasing their hours of
study. Obviously other factors than the independent variables that were researched
impact college GPA. Hypothetically, an independent variable that may be important is
intelligence quotient (IQ) and this was not tested in this current research study.
157
Female nursing students reported that they study more than male nursing students.
However, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about gender and study time since there
were so few males in the sample.
It was also interesting to note that full-time students reported that they studied more
than part-time students. It might be assumed that the part-time students have more time
to study. However, they may be attending college part-time because of other
responsibilities such as work or family, which still may limit their study time.
Work time
Approximately 70% of the participants reported working while attending college.
Given the rising cost of college tuition and in the cost of living in general, this is not
surprising. It is unfortunate that ten percent of the participants reported working 30 or
more hours per week given the difficult nature of a nursing program curriculum. Even
so, only 12% of the participants in this study reported a college GPA of 2.99 or below
and only 4% reported a nursing GPA in the C range.
Part-time students reported that they worked more than full-time students. This
seems to be an obvious finding, again considering that part-time students may have
other responsibilities, including family that they may need to support. This may,
however, be very individualized from one student to the next. Again, these work time
findings are consistent with the NSSE (2006) data. The vast majority of students
enrolled part-time in that survey worked over 20 hours per week.
Self-regulated learning
The total self-regulated learning score was fairly high (in the neutral range). It
appears that the nursing students are active participants in their learning. The students
158
answered 79% of the self-regulated learning questions appropriately. Nursing students
who studied and worked more than 30 hours per week had the highest self-regulated
learning score. Again, it appears that busy people perform better. The areas of selfregulated learning that were most frequently described by the participants include: (a)
goal setting and planning (organizing study time, short- and long-term planning); (b)
self-consequating (student arrangement or imagination of rewards or punishment for
success or failure; learning to help people and make a difference in the world; learning
to develop as a person; hoping to be independent and self-confident; studying gives a
feeling of satisfaction); and (c) self-efficacy (one’s capabilities to perform learning
efforts; important to learn material; belief in succeeding; working hard to do well;
satisfaction in understanding content; confidence in understanding complex material;
and studying is a top priority). Organizing and transforming (editing notes after class;
making charts, diagrams, or tables; and outlining) and self-efficacy (panicking and
worrying) were the areas of self-regulated learning that were least frequently described
by the participants.
When Wilhite (1990) researched self-regulated learning, he found that focus on test
relevance (self-initiated investigation, identification, and allocation of processing to
information that is important for a test) and assiduous resource management
(preparation for or application of one’s energy to the task or activity at hand) and means
of resource management (assesses the degree to which a student uses specific
procedures for managing time and effort in contrast to worrying about managing them)
were significant predictors of course achievement. There is one similar result here, that
159
participants in the current study do not worry or panic, and Wilhite (1990) found that not
worrying is a predictor of course achievement.
Two concepts related to self-regulated learning are locus of control and self-efficacy.
Students with an internal locus of control believe that their behavior is guided by their
personal decisions and efforts. Other researchers looked at locus of control and some
of their findings are similar to the self-regulated learning literature. Goldston,
Zimmerman, Seni, and Gadzella (1977) found that internally oriented students reported
having better study habits and attitudes than did the externally oriented students.
Onwuegbuzie and Daley (1998) found that students with better study skills tended to
score higher on internal locus of control. Jones, Slate, and Marini (1995) found that
students who had an internal locus of control tended to have better study skills. Agnew,
Slate, Jones, and Agnew (1993) found that the more external students’ locus of control,
the weaker their academic skills tended to be. Wilhite (1990) also found that selfefficacy predicted course achievement. Again, the current research showed that the
nursing students who studied more than 30 hours per week had the highest selfregulated learning score. It would have been interesting to have included locus of
control and self-efficacy as independent variables in the current research to see if
nursing students who studied the most had an internal locus of control or high levels of
self-efficacy.
Female nursing students had a higher self-regulated learning score than male
students. This was an expected finding since females reported that they studied more
hours than did males. Full-time students also had a higher self-regulated learning score
than the part-time students. As mentioned above, full-time students reported that they
160
studied more hours. Again, the total self-regulated learning score was based on 64 of
the 79 study behavior questions that pertained specifically to self-regulated learning.
Since only 15 of the study behavior questions on the questionnaire did not pertain to
self-regulated learning, it was expected that results on the total self-regulated learning
score (based on 64 questions) should be very similar to the total study score (based on
79 questions). As noted in the next section, that was the case.
Study score
Nursing students who had the highest study score reported that they studied more
than 30 hours per week. This was an expected finding. Students who study more hours
per week might typically use more and different study behaviors, thus raising their study
score. These students also reported working more than 30 hours per week. This was an
unexpected finding. The researcher thought that students who work many hours would
have less time to use several study behaviors, yet this was not the case. Again, the
explanation may be that busy students perform best. The students with the highest were
26 years of age or older. Again, this was an expected finding as other researchers
found similar results (Lammers et al., 2001, Jones et al. 1994, and Jones et al. 1995).
Female nursing students had a higher study score than male students. This was an
expected finding since females reported studying more hours than did males. Full-time
students had a higher study score than part-time students. As mentioned above, fulltime students reported studying more hours. Full-time students would be expected to
study more hours per week since they are taking more courses than the part-time
students. It would also be expected that they also would have a higher study score, that
is, they might need to use more study behaviors to be successful in their coursework.
161
Study behavior and college GPA
Using cross tabulations (chi-square), of the ten study behaviors compared to college
GPA that were significant, students with the lowest GPA reported the highest
percentage of seven of the study behaviors, including “I put a lot of effort into studying,
because I am determined to do well,” “I have an effective method for memorizing
materials for tests and exams,” “I read my textbook before I come to class,” “I meet with
a tutor or instructor to review material,” “I go over the work I’ve done carefully to check
the reasoning and that it makes sense,” “When I finish a piece of work, I check it
through to see if it really meets the requirements,” and “I don’t find it at all difficult to
motivate myself.” It was interesting that all of the students in the lowest college GPA
range reported putting “a lot of effort into studying” as well as several other positive
study behaviors. The question then is why these students’ efforts do not equate to a
higher GPA. One explanation may be that these students feel that memorization is an
effective method for studying for nursing tests. Wilhite (1990) found that scores on the
Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ) were the best predictor of course achievement
for psychology students. However, in a nursing program, not only do students need to
memorize, they need to apply the memorized material to a clinical situation. Application
is a much more involved study behavior than simply memorizing material for a test. It
would be interesting for future researchers to use the EMQ in research on nursing
students to see if memorization does in fact predict course achievement, college GPA,
or nursing GPA. It was an unexpected finding that reading before coming to class was
reported less frequently by students in the higher college GPA ranges. This behavior
may be nothing more than a personal choice or a scheduling issue. Or the better
162
students may have discovered that the instructors stress certain material during class,
so these students purposely choose to see what the instructor focuses on and then they
complete the reading after class. Not surprising, reviewing material with a tutor or
instructor was more frequently reported in the students in the lower college GPA
ranges. Since these students are struggling, it would be expected that they would seek
the most help.
Of the other three study behaviors compared to college GPA, students with higher
GPAs reported the highest percentage of these, including “I have a fairly quiet place to
study,” “studying is a top priority of mine in college,” and “worrying about doing well on
tests interferes with my studying.” Since a higher percentage of students in the higher
college GPA ranges reported using a quiet study environment, a simple change in study
environment may make a difference for students in the lower college GPA ranges. It is
interesting that the majority of students felt that studying was a top priority of theirs, yet
according to the study time results, almost half of students study ten hours per week or
less. Obviously, if the students report that studying is a priority, that does necessarily
equate to actual study time.
Study behaviors and race
With the low numbers of American Indian or Native American, Black or African
American, and Asian American or Pacific Islander students who completed the
questionnaire, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions about the results. Clearly the
vast majority of participants were Caucasian (over 80%).
Twelve of the study behaviors compared to race were significant. Three of the
significant behaviors are study habits, seven are study strategies, and two are study
163
attitudes. A higher percentage of Caucasian participants report organizing their study
time, having good time management skills, reviewing class notes, going to the instructor
when confused, and understanding class notes. A higher percentage of students of
color report planning out their week’s work in advance, taking practice tests, finding the
author’s meaning in readings, reading textbook before coming to class, rereading notes
after class, getting themselves into the right mood before studying, and motivating
themselves to study.
Study behavior and enrollment status
Using cross tabulations (chi-square), only two of the study questions were significant
with enrollment status. Of the two study behaviors compared to enrollment status, parttime students reported the highest percentage of one of the study behaviors, taking
practice tests. As mentioned above, it is easy to assume that part-time students have
more time to study, yet other responsibilities may limit their study time. Thus it was not
surprising that part-time students reported the highest percentage of only one of the
study behaviors: taking practice tests.
The other study strategy, “I don’t review my class notes during the term in
preparation for tests,” was negatively worded, thus the researcher expected a low
number of participants to agree. As expected, only eight percent of full-time students
agreed, meaning that they reported a higher rate of reviewing class notes in preparation
for tests than did part-time students.
Study behavior and college classification
Using cross tabulations (chi-square), only three of the study questions were
significant with college classification. The results were mixed, with sophomore students
164
reporting higher participation for one of the behaviors, “when I study the readings for
this course, I outline the material to help me organize my thoughts.” Outlining decreased
from sophomore to senior year. Possibly, as students progress through a nursing
program, they become more proficient at reading and identifying key items, thus they
have less need to outline. Junior students reported higher participation for one of the
behaviors, “worrying about doing well on tests interferes with my studying.” Senior
participants reported worrying the least. One explanation for this may be that as
students progress through the nursing program, they learn that worrying typically does
not help achieve outcomes. One of the items, “my time management skills need to be
improved,” was negatively worded and thus the researcher expected that participants
would disagree. Just over 60% of the seniors agreed with this behavior, meaning that
only approximately 40% disagreed. Therefore less than half of the seniors reported
good time management skills. Time management skills did, however, improve from
sophomore to senior year students. This was an expected finding. As courses
requirements increase at each level, students would find it necessary to improve their
time management skills in order to continue to progress through the program.
Study behavior and work time
Table 33 shows the highest (+) and lowest (-) percentage of significant study
behaviors compared to work time. Of the six study behaviors compared to work-time,
students who worked five hours per week or less reported the highest percentage of
four of the study behaviors: “I study nursing every day,” “studying is a top priority of
mine in college,” “I often lie awake worrying about work I think I won’t be able to do” and
“I often seem to panic if I get behind with my work.” It was expected that students who
165
worked the least would report studying nursing every day and would report making
studying a top priority. As work time increases, it seems that students would typically
have less time to study nursing every day. It was unexpected that the students who
worked the least reported worrying and panicking the most. The researcher would have
expected that the students who worked the most would also worry the most, yet this
was not the case. Possibly, these students’ schedules are so full, they simply have
limited time to worry. Two of the behaviors, “I have a specific time to study nursing,” and
“it is my own fault if I don’t learn the material in this course” were reported most
frequently by the participants who worked 26 or more hours per week. It would be
expected that the more time commitments away from school, the more the student may
need to schedule specific study sessions. Students who work 26 hours per week or
more typically would need to study when they are not working, therefore, their study
time would most likely have to be scheduled at specific times each week. In contrast,
students who do not work would have much more flexibility in their study time.
Study behaviors and study time
Table 34 shows the highest (+) and lowest (-) percentage of significant study
behaviors compared to study time. Almost all of the study behaviors that were
significant when compared to study time were reported most frequently by students who
studied the most. Of these 27 study behaviors, students who studied 26 hours per week
or more reported the highest percentage of 16 of the study behaviors.
166
Table 33
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors Compared to Work Time
________________________________________________________________
Work time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
I study nursing
every day.
+
-
I have a specific
time to study
nursing.
-
+
+
-
Study behavior
Studying is a
top priority of
mine in college.
+
It is my own
fault if I don’t
learn the
material in this
course.
I often seem
to panic if I
get behind
with my work.
I often lie
awake worrying
about work I
think I won’t be
able to do.
+
+
-
-
-
167
Table 34
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors Compared to Study Time
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
I organize my
study time
carefully to make
the best use
of it.
-
I work steadily
trough the term,
rather than
leaving it all
for the last minute.
-
I put a lot of
effort into
studying because
I am determined
to do well.
-
+
+
+
I usually plan
out my week’s
work in
advance, either
on paper or in
my head.
+
-
I study too
much for what
I am learning.
+
-
I usually cram
before an exam.
+
+
+
-
________________________________________________________________
(Table 34 continues)
168
(Table 34 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
I put things off
until the last
minute.
+
I study nursing
every day.
-
-
I stick to
studying until
it is completed.
+
-
-
+
I study in a place
where I can
concentrate on
my course work.
+
+
I often feel so
lazy or bored
when I study
that I quit before
I finish what I
planned to do.
+
-
I try to relate
ideas I come
across to those
in other courses
whenever
possible.
-
+
________________________________________________________________
(Table 34 continues)
169
(Table 34 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
When I am
reading, I stop
from time to time
to reflect on
what I am
trying to learn
from it.
-
+
I don’t review
my class notes
during the term
for tests.
+
-
I look my notes
over and edit
them after
class.
-
+
I space out my
studying for an
exam over four
to seven days.
-
+
I read my
textbook before
I come to class.
-
+
I take notes
in nursing class.
I test myself by
asking sample
questions.
-
+
+
+
________________________________________________________________
(Table 34 continues)
170
(Table 34 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
I make simple
charts, diagrams,
or tables to help
organize course
material.
-
+
I try to change
the way I study
to fit course
requirements
and the
instructor’s
teaching style.
-
+
I reread my notes
after class to
make sure they
are legible and
that I understand
them.
-
I test myself on
important topics
until I understand
them.
-
+
Studying is a top
priority of mine
in college.
-
+
+
I work hard to do +
+
well in class
even if I don’t
like what we
are doing.
________________________________________________________________
(Table 34 continues)
171
(Table 34 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Study time
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
30+
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
It is important
for me to learn
the course
material in this
class.
Worrying about
doing well on
tests interferes
with my studying.
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
Students who studied at least 26 hours per week reported the highest frequency of
organizing their study time carefully to make the best use of it, working steadily through
the term rather than leaving it all for the last minute, putting a lot of effort into studying
because they are determined to do well, sticking to studying until it is completed, trying
to relate ideas they come across to those in other courses, editing notes after class,
spacing out studying for an exam over four to seven days, reading before coming to
class, taking notes, testing themselves by asking simple questions, making simple
charts, diagrams or tables to help organize the material, changing the way they study to
fit the course requirements and the instructor’s teaching style, testing themselves on
important topics, making studying a top priority, working hard to do well even if they do
not like what they are doing, and placing importance on learning the course material.
172
As expected, these students who reported studying the most obviously made
studying a top priority and put a lot of extra effort into studying, by not only taking notes,
but by editing their notes after class, making simple charts, diagrams or tables, and
testing themselves on important topics.
Cramming decreased as study time increased. This would be expected. Students
who study more may typically spread out their study sessions rather that study for long
periods at one time, thus cramming would diminish. Students who do not study reported
the highest rate of cramming before an exam. This is obviously contradictory, since they
report that they do not study, yet they cram before an exam. Interestingly, these
participants must not have considered cramming to be studying. Students who studied
more than 30 hours per week reported the lowest rate of cramming. Students who
studied more than 30 hours per week reported the highest rate of agreeing that studying
was a top priority of theirs in college. Students who do not study reported the lowest
rate of agreeing that studying was a priority. It was unexpected yet difficult to explain
why half of students who do not study agreed that studying was a priority. The
researcher expected that if students do not study, they would also disagree that
studying was a priority. Only two students reported that they did not study. This low cell
size means that only one of the students actually felt that studying was a priority and
one did not. Therefore, this result is probably meaningless.
Study behaviors and gender
Using cross tabulations (chi-square), five of the study behaviors were significant with
gender. One was a study habit and showed that females reported the highest
participation rate of studying too much. The other four significant results were with study
173
strategies and showed that for three of them, knowing relaxation techniques, making
simple charts, and asking for help, females reported higher participation rates. Again, it
is very difficult to draw any conclusions from these, since the vast majority of
participants were female (94%). More female than male students reported that they
studied too much for what they were learning; knew several good relaxation techniques;
made simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help them organize course material; and
asked another student in the class for help when they could not understand the material
in the course. More male than female students reported that they spaced out their
studying for an exam over four to seven days.
Study behaviors and nursing GPA
Table 35 shows the highest (+) and lowest (-) percentage of significant study
behaviors compared to nursing GPA.
Students who reported the highest nursing GPA reported the highest time
management skills. They also reported the lowest rate of trouble reading, meeting with
a tutor or instructor, understanding their notes, and worrying about doing well. These
were expected findings. The top academic students would likely have better time
management, reading, note taking, and comprehension skills than their lower academic
counterparts.
These top students also reported the highest rate of being able to keep track of their
progress in nursing courses, putting a lot of effort into studying, because they were
determined to do well, sticking to studying until it was completed, and having an
effective method for memorizing materials for tests and exams. Again, these findings
174
Table 35
Highest and Lowest Percentage of Study Behaviors Compared to Nursing GPA
________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
C________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
I work steadily through
the term rather than
leave it all until the
last minute.
+
I put a lot of effort
into studying, determined
to do well.
+
+
-
+
-
Study behavior
I usually plan out my
week’s work in
advance
-
+
I usually study with
music or the TV on.
-
+
I have a specific
time to study nursing.
My time management
skills need to be
improved.
I stick to studying
until it is completed.
+
-
+
+
-
I coordinate short
+
+
term with long term
planning using a
syllabus and a
calendar.
________________________________________________________________
(Table 35 continues)
175
(Table 35 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
C________________________________________________________________
I have trouble
identifying the main
ideas when I read.
Nursing GPA
-
+
I have an effective
method for memorizing
material for tests and
exams.
+
-
-
+
Study behavior
I meet with a tutor or
instructor to review
material.
I am able to keep track
of my progress in nursing
courses.
I have difficulty
understanding my class
notes when I read them
later.
Studying is a top
priority of mine in college.
I work hard to do well in
class even if I don’t like
what we are doing.
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
________________________________________________________________
(Table 35 continues)
176
(Table 35 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Nursing GPA
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
C________________________________________________________________
I am confident that I can
understand the most
complex material
presented in this class.
-
+
I often find myself
wondering whether the
work I am doing is really
worthwhile.
+
-
Worrying about doing well on tests interferes with
my studying.
+
were expected. Top academic students would typically put more effort into and
complete their studying than would the lower students.
Students who reported a nursing GPA in the B range reported the lowest rate of
planning their week’s work in advance, usually studying with music or the TV on, and
coordinating short and long term planning. The B students also reported the highest rate
of having a specific time to study nursing, and agreeing that studying was a top priority
of theirs in college. These middle-range students still felt that studying was a priority in
college, yet did not report completing as many effective study behaviors as the top
students. Perhaps they were satisfied with grades in the B range, thus they were not
willing to work harder to get in the A range, yet did do some studying so as to not fall
into the C range.
177
Students who reported a nursing GPA in the C range reported the lowest rate of
working steadily through the term, putting effort into studying, sticking to studying until it
was completed, having effective memorization, agreeing that studying was a top priority,
working hard, keeping track of their progress, having difficulty understanding their class
notes when they read them later, having confidence, and often finding themselves
wondering whether the work they were doing was really worthwhile. These were
expected findings. The lower students would typically be expected to have less effective
study habits, strategies, and attitudes than the higher academic students.
Students who reported a nursing GPA in the C range reported the highest rate of
confidence in understanding the most complex material presented by the instructor in
class. This was an unexpected finding and difficult to explain. Obviously, their
confidence is not equating to actual understanding of the most complex material or they
would be getting higher grades. These students also reported the highest rate of
working hard to do well in class even if they don’t like what they are doing, often finding
themselves wondering whether the work they are doing is really worthwhile, worrying
about doing well on tests that interferes with their studying, usually planning out their
week’s work in advance, either on paper or in their head, studying with music or the TV
on, stating that their time management skills need to be improved, and coordinating
short term with long term planning using the syllabus and a calendar. Studying with
music or the TV on was a negatively-worded question; therefore students should have
disagreed with this question. It was not surprising, then, that the students with the
lowest nursing GPA reported a higher rate of using this strategy. It would behoove
instructors or counselors to discuss this negative behavior with these students. Perhaps
178
a simple environmental change, i.e. studying in a quiet place, would improve their
nursing GPA. Since these students reported a lower rate of time management skills,
they should also have instruction on time management skills. The students who
reported the lowest nursing GPA also reported having trouble identifying the main ideas
when they read, and met with a tutor or instructor to review material. These were
expected findings. The lowest academic students would likely benefit the most from
seeing a tutor more often than the better academic students.
Consistency with literature review
Study time
It is interesting to compare the results of the current study with those of Williamson
(1935). Williamson found that 257 science, art, and literature students studied an
average of 26 hours per week and worked 6.5 hours per week, while the current study
found that only 10% of the participants study 26 or more hours per week and 31% did
not work. Ten percent of this study’s participants worked over 30 hours per week. As
college costs escalate, many students may be forced to increase work time, often at the
expense of study time. This would, however, contradict Wagstaff and Mahmoudi’s
(1976) findings which suggested that work time did not decrease study time. Cerrito and
Levi (1999) asked students if they were following the “rule of thumb” for studying, (i.e.
studying two to three hours for every hour in class) and found that, indeed, they were
spending far less. Lammers, Onwuegbuzie, and Slate (2001) found that the mean study
time per week was 15.6 hours. Since the majority of participants in the current study
were full-time students who spend approximately 12-16 hours in class per week,
according to the “rule of thumb” they should spend 24-36 hours per week studying. Only
179
ten percent of participants studied more than 26 hours per week. Schuman, Walsh,
Olson, and Etheridge (1985) found that students studied 3.8 hours per day and found
that science students studied the most. This would be more than was found in the
current research. The modal range for study time in this research was only 6-10 hours
per week, which would equate to approximately only one hour per day. Zuriff (2003)
found that students studied 3.7 hours per week for one course and Dickinson and
O’Connell (1990) found that students studied three hours per week for one course. The
current study did not break out study time for one course, but it would be interesting to
do so in future research. It was interesting to compare the study time results of the
current research to the Stiernborg, Guy, and Tinker (1997) study of nursing students.
They found that nursing students studied an average of 9.6 hours per week, in the
modal range for the current study.
Gender
Lammers, Onwuegbuzie, and Slate (2001) found that females spent significantly
more time studying than males and found that females had higher study scores than
males. Goldston, Zimmerman, Seni, and Gadzella (1977) found that female students
had better study habits and Jones, Slate, Mahan, Green, Marini, and DeWater (1994)
found that female students demonstrated better study skills. DeVito, Tryon, and Carlson
(1983) and Goldston, Zimmerman, Seni, and Gadzella (1977) found that women had
more favorable study attitudes than men. The current study found that females study
more than males, but the difference was not significant. Males had a higher total study
score, but again the difference was not significant.
180
Study behavior
The percentages of appropriate study behaviors completed or performed by
participants on various study tools, such as the SHI and SSHA, used by researchers is
summarized in Table 36.
Table 36
Percentage of Appropriate Study Behaviors on Study Tool
________________________________________________________________
Author
%
________________________________________________________________
Current study
81
Jones, Slate, Kyle
60
Jones, Lawler-Prince, Slate
59
Bailey, Onwuegbuzie
55
Jones, Slate, Mahan, Green, Marini, DeWater
54
Jones, Slate, Marini
51
Agnew, Slate, Jones, Agnew
51
Jones, Slate, Mahan, Green, Marini, and DeWater (1994) found that students
performed only 54% of the study behaviors on the study tool (SHI). Jones, Slate, and
Marini (1995), who also used the SHI, reported that students typically performed only
51% of the behaviors assessed by the SHI appropriately. The SHI was also used by
Jones, Slate, and Kyle (1992) in their research on study strategies. The mean score on
the SHI was 36.4, indicating that students responded appropriately to fewer than 60% of
the items on the SHI. Jones, Lawler-Prince, and Slate (1996) found total SHI scores of
181
37 (59%). Agnew, Slate, Jones, and Agnew (1993) reported a mean SHI score of 32,
indicating that, on average, students responded to only 51% of the items appropriately.
Bailey and Onwuegbuzie (2002) showed a mean SHI score of 35, indicating that the
students regularly performed only 55% of appropriate study behaviors, while the current
research found that participants responded appropriately to 81% of the study behaviors
on the study questionnaire. It is interesting to speculate on why students in this study
performed more study behaviors than any of the other researchers. As discussed
earlier, there is always the danger that students’ self-reports may be inaccurate. The
other researchers studied students majoring in psychology, elementary and secondary
education, agriculture, and language. These are all very different majors from nursing,
typically involving fewer math and science courses, which tend to be difficult courses for
nursing majors. Thus the nursing major students may need to employ more study
behaviors in order to be successful in their program.
Student study strengths and weaknesses found in the review of literature and in the
current research are summarized in Table 37 and 38. Only study habits and strategies
were included in the table (not study attitudes) because none of these researchers
researched study attitudes.
182
Table 37
Common Study Strengths Found by Researchers
_______________________________________________________________
Researchers*
J,S,M,G,M,D
J,S,K
Z,C,B,B,B, Current
G-V,H,K,S
Study
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
Note taking
+
+
Having necessary
materials on hand
+
+
B,O
+
+
Study behavior
Not drinking beer
while studying
+
Trying to apply facts
learned in their
courses to other
courses
+
Turning papers in on
time
+
Thinking critically
about new material
+
+
Studying by themselves
prior to studying with
peers
+
+
Time management
Complete reading
before lecture
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Complete reading before
+
exams
________________________________________________________________
(Table 37 continues)
183
(Table 37 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Researchers*
J,S,M,G,M,D J,S,K
B,O
Z,C,B,B,B, Current
G-V,H,K,S
Study
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
Complete study guide
+
+
Organize study time
+
Put effort into studying
+
Having a quiet place
to study
+
Studying where I
can concentrate
+
Reviewing class notes
+
Developing memory
techniques
+
Asking another student
for help
+
Highlighting, underlining
+
Keeping track of progress
+
Checking work
+
* J,S,M,G,M,D = Jones, et al, J,S,K = Jones, Slate, Kyle, B,O = Bailey, Onwuegbuzie,
Z,C,B,B,B,G-V,H,K,S = Zlokovich, et al.
184
Table 38 Common Study Weaknesses Found by Researchers
________________________________________________________________
Researchers*
J,S,M,G,M,D
J,S,K
B,O
Z,C,B,B,B, Current
G-V,H,K,S
Study
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
Not reading
+
+
Not recopying
lecture notes
+
+
Not using a special
system for learning
new vocabulary
+
+
Procrastination
+
+
Not making simple
diagrams
+
+
Not making outlines of
chapters
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Not studying every day
+
Not studying at a
specific time
+
Not sticking to studying
until completion
+
Cramming
+
Studying with TV or
radio on
+
Time management
+
Not taking practice tests
+
________________________________________________________________
(Table 38 continues)
185
(Table 38 continued)
________________________________________________________________
Researchers*
J,S,M,G,M,D J,S,K
B,O
Z,C,B,B,B, Current
G-V,H,K,S
Study
________________________________________________________________
Study behavior
Not using flashcards
+
Not keeping log of mistakes
on tests
+
* J,S,M,G,M,D = Jones, et al, J,S,K = Jones, Slate, Kyle, B,O = Bailey, Onwuegbuzie,
Z,C,B,B,B,G-V,H,K,S = Zlokovich, et al.
As seen in Table 37, note taking and trying to apply facts from one course to another
were strengths in the majority of the research, including the current study. As seen in
Table 38, not recopying lecture notes, procrastination, not making simple diagrams, and
not making outlines of chapters were weaknesses in the majority of the research,
including the current one. Again, several of the weaknesses in other research were not
questions in the current research, so it was difficult to compare those behaviors.
As seen in Table 37 and Table 38 student study strengths reported by Jones, et al.
(1994) included note taking, having necessary materials at hand, not drinking beer while
studying, trying to apply facts learned in courses to other courses and to events outside
of school, turning papers in on time, thinking critically about new material, and studying
by themselves prior to studying with peers. Weaknesses included not reading, not
recopying lecture notes, not using a system for learning new vocabulary,
186
procrastination, not making simple diagrams, not making outlines of chapters before
reading them.
Also in Table 37 and Table 38, Jones et al. (1992) identified academic strengths and
weaknesses. Three general themes were revealed: note taking, time management, and
study techniques, including using notebooks, not attempting to create verbatim
transcripts, not including irrelevant or unimportant material, and using paraphrases and
abbreviations. On the other hand, the students seldom recopied their notes and did not
maintain a special system for recording new vocabulary.
The students in the above study reported a number of effective time management
behaviors including sufficiently long study periods, not wasting time, being well
prepared, having necessary materials at hand, studying ahead of
time when they planned to study with friends and getting reports ready on time.
Unfortunately, the students also procrastinated about studying.
These same students reported that, rather than memorization, they used a number
of study techniques including thinking critically about new information, breaking
information into smaller clusters, and using material learned in one course to assist
them in other courses. Unfortunately, they seldom created charts or diagrams and did
not develop advance organizers to focus their reading.
As shown in Table 37 and Table 38, study strategies were also explored by Bailey
and Onwuegbuzie (2002). The study strengths of the sample included note-taking, time
management, and study techniques, using notebooks to take notes, using abbreviations
and phrases, having papers completed on time, having necessary materials to study,
avoiding alcohol, not relying on memorization, breaking down material into meaningful
187
parts, avoiding accepting everything that they read, and not having problems identifying
the important aspects of what they read.
Study weaknesses of the above sample included note-taking, study techniques, and
reading skills, not using designated notebooks or recopying their notes, not using a tape
recorder, procrastinating, not creating outlines, and reading several pages without
comprehension.
As seen in Table 37 and Table 38, Zlokovich, et al. (2003) researched study habits.
Results showed that approximately half of students completed reading before lecture,
over half completed readings before exams, and the vast majority completed the study
guide. Students reported that they spent two hours studying for exams, and they started
reading and studying three days before the exam. Overall, the researchers felt that
these findings reflect poor study skills and low motivation to learn on the part of
students.
The study habits in the current study that the students had the highest frequency
included organizing their study time, putting effort into studying, having a quiet place to
study, studying in a place where they could concentrate on their course work, planning
out their week in advance, coordinating short and long term planning, and attending
class regularly. It was difficult to compare the results of the current study (in regards to
study habits) to the literature review because no researcher examined specific study
habits in as much detail as the current researcher did. Prior researchers frequently
addressed study time but not specific study behaviors. Compared to Zlokovich et al.
(2003), the study habits were not similar to the current study. Zlokovich et al. found that
188
students started reading and studying three days before the exam but the current
research found that over half of students cram before an exam.
The study habits in the current study that the students had the lowest frequency of
included cramming before an exam, the need to improve time management skills, and
working on their own, without help from anyone.
The study strategies in the current research that the students had the highest
frequency included relating ideas they come across to those in other courses whenever
possible (similar results to Jones et al. 1994 and Agnew et al. 1993), not reviewing class
notes, taking notes in nursing class (similar results to Jones et al., 1994, Agnew et al.,
1993 and Bailey & Onwuegbuzie, 2002), developing memory techniques, using study
guides (similar to Zlolovich et al., 2003), memorizing key words, asking another student
for help when they couldn’t understand the material, highlighting, underlining, circling, or
starring important ideas when they read, keeping track of their progress, going over
their work, going to the instructor when confused, pulling information from other
sources, finding important ideas in readings, having difficulty understanding notes, and
checking work through to see if it really meets the requirements.
The study strategies in the current study that the students had the lowest frequency
included having study partners in their nursing class, taking practice tests, looking notes
over and editing them after class (similar results to Jones et al., 1994, Jones et al.,
1992, and Bailey & Onwuegbuzie, 2002), reading their textbook before coming to class
(similar to Zlokovich, et al. 2003), outlining (similar results to Jones et al., 1994, Agnew
et al., 1993 and Bailey & Onwuegbuzie, 2002), making simple charts, diagrams, or
tables (similar results to Jones et al., 1994, Agnew et al., 1993 and Jones et al., 1992),
189
rereading notes, meeting with tutor or instructor, and keeping a log of the mistakes they
made on tests.
The study attitudes in the current study that the students had the highest frequency
included: studying was a top priority, working hard to do well in class, importance of
learning the course material in class, confidence in understand the most complex
material presented, trying hard to understand the course material, satisfaction in trying
to understand the content, liking the subject matter, thinking the course material was
useful, was not much of the work that they found interesting or relevant, believing that
they could succeed in nursing class, hoping the things they learned would help them to
develop as a person and broaden their horizons, hoping the whole experience would
make them more independent and self-confident, taking responsibility if they didn’t learn
the material, were not really interested in this course, studying gave them a feeling of
satisfaction, and wanting to learn things which might let them help people and/or make
a difference in the world.
The study attitudes in the current study that the students had the lowest frequency
included lying awake worrying about work, panicking if they got behind, and worryied
about doing well on tests that interferes with their studying.
Age
Lammers et al., (2001) found a correlation between total study score and age. The
current study also found similar results, namely that older students had higher study
scores. Jones et al., (1994), and Jones et al., (1995) also found that older students
reported more appropriate study behavior. The current study also found that older
students studied more hours per week.
190
Course grades, GPA, and academic performance
Lammers, et al. (2001), Cappella, et al. (1982), Gadzella and Williamson (1984),
Jones, et al. (1994), Prus, et al. (1995), and Agnew, et al. (1993) all found a positive
correlation between study score and GPA, and Allen et al., (1972) found a correlation
between study behavior (including study time) and GPA. Jones et al., (1992) found that
study scores positively correlated with course grade. Lin & McKeachie (1979) found that
students with better study habits achieved better grades. Okpala, Okpala, & Ellis (2000)
found that student study strategies were positively associated with course grade. One
study of nursing students completed by Cantwell & Moore (1998) found that study
scores did not correlate with academic performance. The current study found that as
study time increases, college GPA decreased slightly but nursing GPA increased
slightly. Perhaps nursing students spend more time studying for their nursing courses at
the expense of their non-nursing courses and thus decrease their college GPA.
Participants in this study were not specifically asked to break down their study time
between nursing and non-nursing courses. The current study also found that seniors
reported studying more hours, had higher total study scores and self-regulated learning
scores, reported a lower college GPA than sophomores or juniors, but a higher nursing
GPA than sophomores or juniors.
Work time
Few researchers looked at work time and GPA. Wagstaff and Mahmoudi (1976)
found a negative correlation between job holding and GPA. Jones, et al. (1995) found a
negative correlation between study time and work time. The more hours students
worked, the less they studied. Lammers, et al. (2001) found that students who spent the
191
most time working had the lowest GPA. In the current study, students who did not work
reported the highest study time. This was an expected finding. However, students who
worked more than 30 hours per week reported the highest study score, and the highest
self-regulated learning score. These were unexpected findings. Possibly, the students
who work the most realize that they must stay focused and put forth extra effort in
studying to compensate for the time they must or choose to work. Again, often the
students who are the busiest perform the best.
Enrollment status
Jones, et al. (1995) found a negative correlation between study time and number of
credit hours taken. The current research found that students who are enrolled full-time
study more than part- time students. This would be expected since typically, the more
courses a student is taking, the more the student would need to study to be successful
and the fewer other responsibilities they may have. This result was similar to what
Jones et al (1995) found: the more enrolled credit hours students had, the more they
studied. The full-time students may also feel compelled to finish their degree in four
years and are thus more motivated to study to complete their degree within that time
frame. The part-time students may not have a specific time frame in which they need to
finish their degree and thus may be less motivated to study. Also, these full-time
students may have more time for studying since they may have fewer responsibilities
than the part-time students.
Predictors of college GPA and nursing GPA
This study found that independent variables of age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, total
study score, self-regulated learning score, study time, work time, and enrollment status
192
were predictors of the dependent variables of college GPA and nursing GPA. In
comparison, other authors found some different and some similar predictors of GPA.
Allen, et al. (1972) found the best predictors of college GPA to be H.S. percentile rank
and study time. Lammers, et al. (2001) found that hours worked and study score were
predictors of college GPA. College GPA, study time, and gender were predictors of
study time. Gadzella and Williamson (1984) found that total study skills predicted
college GPA. Onwuegbuzie and Daley (1998) found that academic locus of control was
a predictor of study skills. Kirkland and Hollandsworth (1979) found that ACT scores,
anxiety, and study strategies predicted college GPA. Wilhite (1990) found that scores on
a memory questionnaire, locus of control, and scores on a self-concept questionnaire
were predictors of course achievement. Prus, et al. (1995) found that study score was a
predictor of college GPA. Corlett (1974) found that library skills predicted college GPA.
In the current study some of these variables were not included, including H.S. percentile
rank, academic locus of control, ACT scores, anxiety, memory, self-concept and library
skills. It might be interesting to include some or all of these variables in future research
with nursing students. Overall, five of the previous researchers found that either study
time or study score were predictors of college GPA. Both of these variables were
included in the current research and found to be predictors of college GPA as well as
nursing GPA.
Discussion Summary
The most compelling results of the current research are summarized below. These
results will then be discussed in the implications for practice section.
193
Approximately half of the participants reported studying ten hours or fewer per week.
Just over half of the nursing students reported working ten hours or less per week.
Students who reported that they did not work reported that they studied more than
students who worked. Students who had the highest study score and highest selfregulated learning score reported that they studied and worked more than 30 hours per
week. Nursing students who reported that they worked more than 30 hours per week
reported the highest nursing GPA.
The independent variables, including age, gender, race, H.S. GPA, total study score,
self-regulated learning score, study time, work time, college classification, and
enrollment status, were significant predictors of both college GPA and nursing GPA.
However, other variables that were not specified in this research play a measurable role
in the dependent variables.
Several study behaviors were associated with both a higher college GPA (3.00 or
higher) and a higher nursing GPA (B or higher). These behaviors include: having a quiet
place to study, putting a lot of effort into studying, having a specific time to study
nursing, having good time management skills, sticking to studying until it is completed,
having an effective method for memorizing materials for tests and exams, keeping track
of progress in nursing courses, and making studying a top priority in college.
The total self-regulated learning score was fairly high (in the neutralrange). It
appears that the nursing students are active participants in their learning. The students
answered 79% of the self-regulated learning questions appropriately. Goal setting and
planning, self-consequating, and self-efficacy were the areas of self-regulated learning
that were most frequently used by the participants. Organizing and transforming and
194
self-efficacy were the areas of self-regulated learning that were least frequently used by
the participants. All of the above study questions that were associated with a higher
college GPA and a higher nursing GPA were also self-regulated learning questions. So
these self-regulated learning behaviors would also be associated with a higher college
GPA and a higher nursing GPA.
Implications for practice
The findings of this research have several implications for practice. What has been
learned about nursing students’ study behavior needs to be communicated to college
student personnel, such as faculty, advisors, and academic deans.
First, it may not be reasonable for students to meet the study time expectations
according to the “Rule of thumb” of two hours of study time for every one hour of class
time. Many students today have multiple responsibilities outside of the college setting,
including family and work, that limit their study time. However, since nursing programs
have strenuous course requirements and high GPA requirements, and since many
faculty continue to have expectations that students spend at least 24 hours per week
studying, it would still behoove personnel to discuss these outside responsibilities with
students and counsel students to limit their outside distractions as much as possible.
One of the major outside distractions for college students is work. Study behaviors
that were negatively associated with increased work time included blaming themselves
if they do not learn the material in the course, and often lying awake worrying about
work they think they will not be able to do. Since the majority of nursing students may
have to continue to work during college due to rising tuition and cost of living, students
may need counseling on how to balance studying and work. Certainly blaming
195
themselves and worrying are two study behaviors that need to be minimized if they are
going to be successful in a nursing program. However, it appears that working did not
decrease academic achievement for the better nursing students. Students may need to
discuss their working needs to find the amount of individual work time that meets their
personal goals for studying and academic achievement.
Second, nursing students need to be advised that both study time and total study
score are predictors of academic success. The more study habits, strategies, and habits
that the nursing students can adopt, the more successful they may be in a difficult
program. Nursing students also need to be advised about study time. Again,
considering that many of these students have other responsibilities outside of college,
including working, they still need to be encouraged to limit those responsibilities if
possible and increase study time.
Third, the study behaviors that were associated with higher college GPA (3.00 or
higher) and higher nursing GPA (B or higher) should be encouraged in nursing
students. These students made studying a priority and put much effort into it. They have
good time management skills, study at a specific time in a quiet environment, and study
until completion. They also have an effective method for memorizing materials and keep
track of progress in nursing courses. It may be beneficial for nursing instructors to add a
section to their syllabus where they discuss and encourage these positive study
behaviors in their nursing students. Nursing students can improve their chances of
earning good grades by developing good study strategies. Another way to encourage
these study behaviors in nursing students would be to include them in the curriculum,
possibly incorporating them into a study skills course. At Mercy College of Northwest
196
Ohio, where the current researcher is a professor, first-time college students are
required to take a student success course study skills. The course’s purpose is to
enhance academic performance and assist students to achieve efficient learning and
includes content on learning styles, listening, note-taking, reading comprehension, testtaking, and critical thinking.
And lastly, students need to be encouraged to engage in self-regulated learning.
Goal setting and planning, such as organizing study time carefully, coordinating short
and long term planning, self-consequating, such as wanting to learn things that will help
people and make a difference in the world, hoping to learn to develop as a person and
broaden horizons, hoping to be more independent and self-confident, studying for a
feeling of deep personal satisfaction, and self-efficacy, such as placing importance on,
trying hard, and having confidence to learning course material, working hard to do well,
and making studying a top priority are all behaviors that could be encouraged in nursing
students. Again, all of the above study questions (that were also self-regulated learning
behaviors) that were associated with a higher college GPA and a higher nursing GPA
should be encouraged in nursing students.
Strengths
The questionnaire was sent to many nursing programs across the United States, not
to just a single institution or to institutions in a limited geographic area. This large
sample size was a strength for the study since it provided for adequate representation
of nursing students across the country.
197
Another strength of this research is that it fills a void in higher education literature
and research. No other researcher to date has researched study behaviors of nursing
students using this methodology.
Limitations
The response rate to the questionnaire was low. The length of the survey may have
discouraged some recipients from participating. For future researchers, it may be helpful
to include in the cover letter that if the nursing program administrator chooses, he/she
may photocopy the questionnaire and distribute it to other willing participants. This may
increase the response rate. However, this would have affected the return postage,
which the researcher pre-paid.
Also, the questionnaire was mailed in mid- to late-April and several nursing program
administrators informed the researcher that the timing was too close to finals week for
their students and they would not be able to participate. Earlier in the term may have
been a better time for the students to participate.
Several nursing program administrators also were not able to distribute the
questionnaire to potential student participants because the researcher had not
completed human subject review procedures for their institutions. Due to time
constraints, the researcher did not feel it necessary to do so, but to get a better
representation of nursing programs, it may be necessary for future researchers to do so.
Because the study relied on voluntary participation, it is possible that students who
chose to complete the questionnaire are qualitatively different from those who did not.
Students who were inclined to complete the questionnaire may have had better study
198
skills and those who declined to complete the questionnaire may have realized that they
did not have good study skills and therefore chose not to complete it.
The questionnaire was very expensive to mail since it was several pages long. This
made it heavy and also since so many were sent, it became expensive. The use of an
electronic questionnaire was discussed and considered, but was not used. It was
thought that the response rate would be higher if the nursing program administrators
were contacted and then distributed the questionnaires to the instructors and
subsequently the student participants. Furthermore, the researcher had contact
information for the nursing program administrators, not individual nursing students.
Therefore, there was no way of contacting individual students in order to send them the
questionnaire, except through the administrators. For future research, it may be more
cost-effective to use an electronic format, and have the nursing program administrators
encourage their students to complete the questionnaire.
Even though the questionnaires were sent to an equal number of sophomores,
juniors, and seniors, very few sophomores (26) completed the questionnaires,
compared to 170 juniors, and 199 seniors. Therefore, any of the results in the current
study using college classification as a variable should be viewed cautiously.
The number of male participants was also very low (23/407). However, this was not
unexpected since the percentage of male nurses is low across the United States.
Historically, the nursing profession has been female-dominated, so it is not surprising
that the sample was female-dominated. Because of this, though, it is not possible to
generalize the findings to male nursing students.
199
Eighty-one percent of the participants were Caucasian. Because of this, it is not
possible to generalize the findings to nursing students of other races/ethnic groups.
The study time question on the questionnaire was not specific to nursing courses.
Since the researcher was particularly interested in nursing students and their study
behavior, it may have been better to phrase the question: “About how many hours do
you spend in a typical 7-day week studying for your nursing courses?” However, the
way the question was asked in the current study did yield some positive information. For
example, it was learned that half of the nursing students studied at least 11 hours per
week. Also, female nursing students studied more than male nursing students and fulltime nursing students studied more than part-time nursing students.
The issue of self-reporting study time and behavior was also a limitation of the study.
The question remains as to how honest the participants were in reporting their answers
on the study questionnaire. One way to eliminate this would be to complete a qualitative
research study in which the researcher observed the participants studying and recorded
actual study time and behaviors. However, this research might not be very feasible
since research of this nature would be very time consuming. Also, the direct observation
of studying might distort the phenomenon.
The researcher did not track the number of different nursing programs that the
questionnaires came from. For future research, it may be useful and interesting to do
so. For example, if the questionnaires had been coded for the name of the institution,
the researcher could have obtained the demographics of each institution from web sites
and then demographic comparisons could have been made with the current research.
200
Using a range of hours for study time and work time on the study questionnaire was
also a limitation. For example, students reported study time in the ranges of 0, 1-5, 610, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30, and more than 30 hours. Thus, only a frequency for
each range and the mode range were obtained. Thus it was not possible to obtain an
actual mean for either of these variables.
There were some general concerns about the reliability of the questionnaire used for
the research. During the pilot study, the three nursing instructors who administered the
tool noted that it only took from 5-20 minutes for the participants to complete. The
researcher had originally estimated that it would take approximately 30 minutes to
complete, based on the length of the questionnnaire. For this reason, questions were
raised about how thoughtfully and completely respondents were answering the various
questions. It may behoove future researchers to add a statement to the student cover
letter that suggests that respondents read each question thoroughly and answer each
question thoughtfully and truthfully. This might increase the reliability of the research.
Recommendations for future research
In the current research, it was difficult to draw any conclusions about college
classification due to the small number of sophomore students who completed the
questionnaire. Future researchers need to ensure a more equal representation from
sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
Also, few conclusions could be made about male nursing students since there were
so few of them in the sample. In order to learn more about male nursing students’ study
behavior, future researchers may need to try to recruit more male nursing students to
complete the questionnaire. One possible way of doing this may be to send the
201
questionnaire to every nursing program and ask the administrator to give it to every
male student in the program.
As with college classification and gender, so was the case with race/ethnicity. As the
college campus becomes more diversified, future researchers may be able to recruit a
more diversified sample and gain more knowledge about nursing students of other
race/ethnicity than Caucasian.
The low response rate needs to be addressed by future researchers. The
questionnaire was very long. Future researchers may need to consider shortening the
tool so as to increase the response rate of completion. For example, the two items: “I
look my notes over and edit them after class” and “After class, I reread my notes to
make sure they are legible and that I understand them” are very similar and one of them
could easily be eliminated. Also, it would behoove the researcher to not distribute the
questionnaire so close to the end of the term. This may increase the response rate.
Also, as mentioned above, future researchers may choose to distribute the
questionnaire electronically since many of today’s students are technologically savvy
and may prefer to use the computer over a paper and pencil format.
Qualitative research could be undertaken to examine these research questions. A
more in-depth understanding of students’ study behavior might be achieved using this
methodology. The researcher could use both interviewing and direct observation of
nursing students. One or more definitions of studying might emerge from the
participants through their emic perspective. Each participant may have a different
definition of studying and these would emerge through the interview process. An
example of a research question using qualitative research might be: “What are the
202
patterns of study behavior that characterize nursing students?” Interview questions
might include: “What does studying mean to you,” “Tell me how you study, “or “How
many hours do you study each day or week?” “What are some study behaviors you use
in college?” Students could be observed wherever they study, for example, in their
residence hall or a library. This would be very time consuming, however. Another option
for the qualitative researcher would be to have the participants keep a time diary or
study log, which could then be analyzed. The NSSE researchers (NSSE, 2007) found
that diary entries tend to be more accurate than surveys. Validity would also increase if
the researcher asked the participants on more than one occasion what their time
commitments were (study time, work time, etc.). “Requesting multiple time estimates
also makes it possible to control for outliers” (NSSE, 2007, p. 2). It also might behoove
the researcher to not tell the participants what the researcher is examining. In this way,
the phenomenon of studying might not be distorted since the participant is unaware of
what they are being observed for.
Other independent variables could be added to the multiple regression equations. It
would be interesting to add class attendance and number of days studied by the
participants. Used by previous researchers, these were two independent variables that
did predict GPA.
It would be interesting to research associate degree as well as graduate nursing
students’ study behavior. Also, it would behoove future researchers to include
international nursing students.
203
Conclusion
The current study contributes some empirical evidence to the body of knowledge of
study behavior of college students. The results of this research may be useful for
college and university nursing program administrators, educators, tutors, and students
alike. As knowledge about nursing students and their study behavior expands, students
may very well benefit not only in their nursing course success, but in college success in
general. Institutions may also reap the benefits as retention rates potentially increase.
This may also have the added benefit of increasing the pool of qualified nurses entering
the profession in a time of a dire nursing shortage.
204
REFERENCES
Agnew, N. C., Slate, J. R., Jones, C. H., & Agnew, D. M. (1993). Academic
behaviors as a function of academic achievement, locus of control &
motivational orientation. NACTA Journal, 37, 24-27.
Allen, G. J., Lerner, W. M., & Hinrichsen, J. J. (1972). Study behaviors and their
relationships to test anxiety and academic performance. Psychological
Reports, 30, 407-410.
Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situation.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.
Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (Short Version) (ASSIST)
(1997). Retrieved January 20, 2005 from
http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/questionnaires/ASSIST.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes,
and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (2002). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Westport, CN: Oryx Press.
Bailey, P. D. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). The role of study habits in foreign
language courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 463473.
Bartling, C. A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in the study habits of successful
college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 527-535.
Biggs, J. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire. Hawthorn, ACER. Retrieved
205
January 20, 2005 from http://www.geocities.com/gprss_edu/spq.htm
Bol, L., Warkentin, R. W., Nunnery, J. A., & O’Connell, A. A. (1999). College
students’ study activities and their relationship to study context, reference
course, and achievement. College Student Journal, 33(4), 608-622.
Brookover, W. B., Erickson, E. L., & Joiner, L. M. (1967). Self-concept of ability
and school achievement. U.S. Office of Educational Cooperative Research
Report, Project No. 2831. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Office of
Research and Publications.
Brown, W., & Holtzman, W. (1956). Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes. New
York: Psychological Corp.
Brown, W. F. (1975). Effective study test: Manual of directions. San Marcos, TX:
Effective Study Materials.
Brown, W. F., & Gadzella, B. M. (1981). CAI Study Skills Test. San Marcos, TX:
Effective Study Materials.
Cantwell, R. & Moore, P. J. (1996). The development of measures of individual
differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to academic
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500-517.
Cantwell, R., & Moore, P. J. (1998). Relationships among control beliefs,
approaches to learning, and the academic performance of final-year nurses.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(1), 98-102.
Cappella, B. J., Wagner, M., & Kusmierz, J. A. (1982). Relation of study habits
and attitudes to academic performance. Psychological Reports, 50, 593-594.
Cerrito, P. B. & Levi, I. (1999). An investigation of student habits in mathematics
206
courses. College Student Journal, 33, 584-588.
Charles, C. M., & Mertler, C. A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Christensen, F. A. (1968). College Adjustment and Study Skills Inventory. Berea,
OH: Personal Growth Press.
Christopoulos, J. O., Rohwer, W. D., Jr., & Thomas, J. W. (1987). Grade level
differences in students’ study activities as a function of course characteristics.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 303-323.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cook Counseling Center Study Skills Inventory (n.d.). Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. Retrieved January 20,
2005 from http://www.ucc.vt.edu/studyskills/aassaform.htm
Corlett, D. (1974). Library skills, study habits and attitudes, and sex as related to
academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34,
967-969.
DeVito, A. J., Tryon, G. S., & Carlson, J. F. (1983). Scholastic aptitude decline
and changes in study habits and attitudes. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 411-416.
Dickinson, D. J., & O’Connell, D. Q. (1990). Effect of quality and quantity of study
on student grades. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 227-231.
Edwards, H. (1993). Student work and study habits at a comprehensive
university: A preliminary report. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 3,
207
111-119.
Elliott, T., Godshall, F., Shrout, J. R., & Witty, T. E. (1990). Problem-solving
appraisal, self-reported study habits, and performance of academically at-risk
college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 203-207.
Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London:
Croom Helm.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing
naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
French, P., Callahan, P., Dudley-Brown, S., Holroyd, E., & Sellick, K. (1998). The
effectiveness of tutorials in behavioural sciences for nurses: An action
learning project. Nurse Education Today, 18, 116-124.
Gadzella, B. M., & Williamson, J. D. (1984). Study skills, self-concept, and
academic achievement. Psychological Reports, 54, 923-929.
Glossop, C. (2002). Student nurse attrition: Use of an exit-interview procedure to
determine students’ leaving reasons. Nurse Education Today, 22 (5), 375286.
Goldston, J., Zimmermann, M., Seni, C., & Gadzella, B. M. (1977). Study habits
and attitudes characteristic of sex and locus-of-control groups. Psychological
Reports, 40, 271-274.
Gyrus Study Strategies Inventory (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2005 from http://
www.gyrus.nu/Learning_Skills/Study_Skills/Study_Strategies_Inventory.html
Heppner, P. P. (1988). The problem-solving inventory: Manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
208
Houston, L. N. (1987). The predictive validity of a study habits inventory for first
semester undergraduates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
1025-1030.
Johnson, D. W. & Norem-Hebeisen, A. A. (1979). A measure of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology,
109, 253-261.
Jones, C. H., Lawler-Prince, D., & Slate, J. R. (1996). Comparison of the study
skills of college students majoring in elementary and secondary education.
Teacher Educator, 32(2), 99-106.
Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., & Kyle, A. (1992). Study skills of teacher education
students. The Teacher Educator, 28, 7-15.
Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., Mahan, K. D., Green, A. E., Marini, I., & DeWater, B. K.
(1994). Study skills of college students as a function of gender, age, class, and
grade point average. Louisiana Education Research Journal, 19(2), 60-74.
Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., & Marini, I. (1995). Locus of control, social
interdependence, academic preparation, age, study time, and the study skills
of college students. Research in the Schools, 2(1), 55-62.
Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory
analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 101-113.
Kirkland, K., & Hollandsworth, J. G. (1979). Test anxiety, study skills, and
academic performance. Journal of College Student Personnel, 431-436.
Lammers, W. J., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Slate, J. R. (2001). Academic success as
a function of the gender, class, age, study habits, and employment of college
209
students. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 71-81.
Lin, Y. & McKeachie, W. J. (1979). Aptitude, anxiety, study habits, and academic
achievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 306-309.
Martin, M. (1983). Cognitive failure: Everyday and laboratory performance.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 97-100.
Math Study Skills Inventory (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2005 from
http://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11064/skill.html
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical
methods: Practical application and interpretation. (2nd ed.).Los Angeles:
Pyrczak Publishing.
Milholland, J. E. (1964). Measuring cognitive abilities. In W. J. McKeachie, R. L.
Isaacson, & J. E. Milholland, Research on the Characteristic of Effective
College Teaching. (Final Report: Cooperative Research Project No. SAE 850,
United States Office of Education and the University of Michigan), Washington
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.
MSLQ Questionnaire (1998). Retrieved January 20, 2005 from
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/hudspeth/uttc/mslqform.htm
Murray, C. & Wren, C. T. (2003). Cognitive, academic, and attitudinal predictors
of the grade point averages of college students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 407-415.
National Survey of Student Engagement (2006). Engaged learning: Fostering
success for all students. NSSE Annual Report, 1-54.
National Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Validity. NSSE Annual Report,
210
1-4. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from
http://nsse.iub.edu/html/PsychometricPortfolio_Validity.cfm
NLN 2002-2003 survey of RN nursing programs indicates positive upward trends
in the nursing workforce supply. (n.d.). National League for Nursing News.
Retrieved January 12, 2004 from http://www.nln.org
Nowicki, S. & Duke, M. F. (1974). A locus of control scale for college as well as
non-college adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136-137.
Okpala, A. O., Okpala, C. O., & Ellis, R. (2000). Academic efforts and study
habits among students in a Principles of Macroeconomics course. Journal of
Education for Business, 75(4), 219-224.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Daley, C. E. (1998). Study skills of undergraduates as a
function of academic locus of control, self-perception, and social
interdependence. Psychological Reports, 83, 595-598.
Paterson, D. G. & Drake, L. E. (n.d.). Reliability analysis of the 1929 form of the
Minnesota College ability test. Unpublished report.
Pintrich, P. R. (Ed.). (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Prentice Hall’s Student Success Studying Quiz (2002). Retrieved January 20,
2005 from http://www.prenhall.com/success/StudySkl/studying_q.html
Prus, J., Hatcher, L., Hope, M., Grabiel, C. (1995). The Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI) as a predictor of first-year college academic
success. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 7(2), 7-26.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
211
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 271-274.
Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F. D., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a selfreport inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431.
Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward:
The assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Social
Forces: 63(4), 945-966.
Stiernborg, M., Guy, J., & Tinker, R. (1997). Nursing students’ approaches to
studying. Nurse Education Today, 17, 121-127.
Strage, A., Baba, Y., Millner, S., Scharberg, M., Walker, E., Williamson, R., &
Yoder, M. (2002). What every student affairs professional should know:
Student study activities and beliefs associated with academic success.
Journal of College Student Development, 43, 46-66.
Study Skills Checklist (n.d.). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Retrieved January 20, 2005 from
http://www.ucc.vt.edu/studysk/checklis.html
Study Skills Inventory (n.d.). Suffolk County Community College. Retrieved
January 20, 2005 from
http://www/sunysuffolk.edu/Web/SeldenBiology/skills.htm
Study Skills Inventory (n.d.). Wilfrid Laurier University. Retrieved January 20,
2005 from http://info.wlu.ca/wwwcouns/StudySkillsInventory.shtml
Terman, L. M. (1973). Concept mastery test. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
212
Trice, A. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1043-1046.
Wagstaff, R. & Mahmoudi, H. (1976). Relation of study behaviors and
employment to academic performance. Psychological Reports, 38, 380-382.
Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI User’s Manual. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing
Company, Inc.
Wilhite, S. C. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory
ability, and study activities as predictors of college course achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 696-700.
Williamson, E. G. (1935). The relationship of number of hours of study to
scholarship. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 682-688.
www.nln.org
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zinn, K. L. (1964). Validation of a differential test of cognitive objectives of the
first course in psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan.
Zlokovich, M. S., Crites, D., Bingham, J., Buck, L., Burt, S., Goings-Vogelsang,
C., Humphrey, R., Koszuzek, K., & Steiner, A. (2003). How are first-year
student study habits and grade predictions related to semester and
cumulative grades, long-term retention, and graduation? Journal of the First-
213
Year Experience & Students in Transition, 15(1), 77-103.
Zuriff, G. E. (2003, March). A method for measuring student study time and
preliminary result. College Student Journal. Retrieved August 26, 2004 from
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0FCR/is137/ai99816483
214
APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
215
Research Questionnaire
1. How old are you? _____years
2. What gender are you? Male_____
Female_____
3. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
Mark all that apply.
_____American Indian or other Native American
_____Asian American or Pacific Islander
_____Black or African American
_____Caucasian
_____Hispanic
Other specify:_____________________________
4. What was your High school GPA?_____
5. What is your college GPA? _____
6. What have most of your grades in your nursing courses been up to now at your
institution?
A_____
B_____
C_____
A-_____
B-_____
C- or lower
B+_____
C+_____
7. This term, are you enrolled
Full-time_____
Part time_____
8. What is your current classification in college?
Sophomore_____
Junior_____
Senior_____
Unclassified_____
9. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week studying?
0_____
1-5_____
6-10_____
11-15_____
216
16-20_____
21-25_____
26-30_____
more than 30_____
10. About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week working?
0_____
1-5_____
6-10_____
11-15_____
16-20_____
21-25_____
26-30_____
more than 30_____
Please answer the following questions by using the scale below.
4 agree
3 agree somewhat
2 disagree somewhat
1 disagree
11. I organize my study time carefully to make the best use of it. (habit, goal setting and
planning, University of Edinburgh - ASSIST)
12. I work steadily through the term, rather than leave it all until the last minute (habit,
goal setting and planning, ASSIST).
13. I put a lot of effort into studying, because I am determined to do well (habit,
ASSIST).
14. I usually plan out my week’s work in advance, either on paper or in my head (habit,
goal setting and planning, ASSIST).
15. I study too much for what I am learning (habit, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University).
16. I usually cram before an exam (habit, goal setting and planning, Virginia Tech).
17. I usually study with music or the TV on (habit, environmental structuring, Virginia
Tech).
18. I stop studying when I am exhausted (habit, Wilfrid Laurier University).
19. I put things off until the last minute (habit, goal setting and planning, Wilfrid Laurier).
20. I have a fairly quiet place to study (habit, environmental structuring, Middle
Tennessee State University - Math Study Skills Inventory).
21. I study nursing every day (habit, goal setting and planning, Math Study Skills
Inventory).
22. I have a specific time to study nursing (habit, goal setting and planning, Math Study
Skills Inventory).
217
23. My time management skills need to be improved (habit, goal setting and planning,
Virginia Tech).
24. I become tired or distracted if I study for long periods of time (habit, Virginia Tech).
25. I stick to studying until it is completed (habit, goal setting and planning, Prentice
Hall).
26. I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my course work (habit,
environmental structuring, Motivated Strategiers for Learning Questionnaire - MSLQ).
27. I often feel so lazy or bored when I study for this class that I quit before I finish what
I planned to do (habit, goal setting and planning, MSLQ).
28. I attend this class regularly (habit, MSLQ)).
29. I coordinate short term with long term planning using the syllabus and a calendar
(habit, goal setting and planning, Gyrus).
30. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, I try to do the work on my
own, without help from anyone (strategy, seeking social assistance, MSLQ).
31. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in
each study period (strategy, goal setting and planning, MSLQ).
32. I have study partners in my nursing class (strategy, seeking social assistance, Math
Study Skills Inventory).
33. I know several good relaxation techniques (strategy, Math Study Skills Inventory).
34. I take practice tests (strategy, reviewing records, Math Study Skills Inventory).
35. I try to relate ideas I come across to those in other courses whenever possible
(strategy, ASSIST).
36. When I read an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author
means (strategy, seeking information, ASSIST).
37. When I am reading, I stop from time to time to reflect on what I am trying to learn
from it (strategy, reviewing records, ASSIST).
38. I don’t review my class notes during the term in preparation for tests (strategy,
reviewing records, Virginia Tech).
39. I have trouble identifying the main ideas when I read (strategy, Virginia Tech).
218
40. I look my notes over and edit them after class (strategy, organizing and
transforming, Wilfrid Laurier).
41. I space out my studying for an exam over four to seven days (strategy, goal setting
and planning, Wilfrid Laurier.
42. I have an effective method for memorizing materials for tests and exams (strategy,
rehearsing and memorizing, Wilfrid Laurier).
43. I read my textbook before I come to class (strategy, reviewing records).
44. I take notes in nursing class (strategy, Math Study Skills Inventory).
45. I go to the instructor when I am confused (strategy, seeking social assistance, Math
Study Skills Inventory).
46. I use flashcards (strategy, rehearsing and memorizing, Math Study Skills Inventory).
47. I develop memory techniques to remember nursing concepts (strategy, rehearsing
and memorizing, Math Study Skills Inventory).
48. I test myself by asking sample questions (strategy, reviewing records, Suffolk
County Community College).
49. Study guides are useful study tools (strategy, seeking information, Suffolk County
Community College).
50. I meet with a tutor or instructor to review material (strategy, seeking social
assistance, Suffolk County Community College).
51. When I study the readings for this course, I outline the material to help me organize
my thoughts (strategy, organizing and transforming, MSLQ).
52. I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material
(strategy, organizing and transforming, MSLQ).
53. When I study for this class, I pull together information from different sources, such
as lectures, readings, and discussions (strategy, organizing and transforming, MSLQ).
54. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the
instructor’s teaching style (strategy, seeking social assistance, MSLQ).
55. I memorize key words to remind me of important concepts in this class.
56. When I can’t understand the material in this course, I ask another student in this
class for help (strategy, seeking social assistance, MSLQ).
219
57. I highlight, underline, circle, or star important ideas when I read (strategy, seeking
information).
58. After class, I reread my notes to make sure they are legible and that I understand
them (strategy, reviewing records, SPQ).
59. When I study for this course, I go through the readings and try to find the most
important ideas (strategy, reviewing records, MSLQ).
60. I am able to keep track of my progress in nursing courses (strategy, keeping records
and monitoring, Gyrus).
61. I go over the work I’ve done carefully to check the reasoning and that it makes
sense (strategy, self-evaluation, ASSIST).
62. I test myself on important topics until I understand them completely (strategy,
reviewing records, SPQ).
63. When I finish a piece of work, I check it through to see if it really meets the
requirements (strategy, self-evaluation, ASSIST).
64. I have difficulty understanding my class notes when I read them later (strategy,
reviewing records, Virginia Tech).
65. When tests are returned, I keep a log of the mistakes I make on tests (strategy,
keeping records and monitoring, Math Study Skills Inventory).
66. Studying is a top priority of mine in college (attitude, self-efficacy, Prentice Hall).
67. I work hard to do well in this class even if I don’t like what we are doing (attitude,
self-efficacy, MSLQ).
68. It is my own fault if I don’t learn the material in this course (attitude, self-judgment,
MSLQ).
69. It is important for me to learn the course material in this class (attitude, self-efficacy,
MSLQ).
70. I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the
instructor in this class (attitude, self-efficacy, MSLQ).
71. If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material (attitude, self-efficacy,
MSLQ).
220
72. The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as
thoroughly as possible (attitude, self-reaction, MSLQ).
73. I like the subject matter in this course (attitude, MSLQ).
74. I think the course material in this class is useful for me to learn (attitude, MSLQ).
75. I get myself into the right mood before studying (attitude, Prentice Hall).
76. I find that studying academic topics can be quite exciting at times (attitude,
ASSIST).
77. I don’t find it at all difficult to motivate myself (attitude, self-motivation, ASSIST).
78. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile
(attitude, self-efficacy, ASSIST).
79. There’s not much of the work here that I find interesting or relevant (attitude,
ASSIST).
80. I’m not really interested in this course, but I have to take it for other reasons
(attitude, ASSIST).
81. I often seem to panic if I get behind with my work (attitude, self-efficacy, ASSIST).
82. Often I lie awake worrying about work I think I won’t be able to do (attitude,
ASSIST).
83. I believe that I can succeed in nursing class (attitude, self-efficacy, Math Study Skills
Inventory).
84. Worrying about doing well on tests interferes with my studying (attitude, selfefficacy, Virginia Tech).
85. I want to do well in this class because it is important to show my ability to my family,
friends, employer, or others (attitude, self-consequating, MSLQ).
86. I hope the things I learn will help me to develop as a person and broaden my
horizons (attitude, self-consequating, University of Edinburgh - LSQ).
87. I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction
(attitude, self-consequating, SPQ).
88. I hope the whole experience here will make me more independent and selfconfident (attitude, self-consequating, LSQ).
221
89. I want to learn things which might let me help people and/or make a difference in the
world (attitude, self-consequating, LSQ).
222
APPENDIX B. PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONS
223
Lori Doll-Speck
22749 Dunbridge Rd.
Perrysburg, Oh. 43551
Name of University
Address of University
To Whom It May Concern:
I am working on my dissertation entitled: Study Behavior of Nursing Students. I would
like to use the following items from (name of questionnaire). Your signature below
indicates your permission to use the items.
Items:
(List of items)
I give permission to Lori Doll-Speck to use the above-mentioned items in her doctoral
research.
Signature________________________Date_____________________
I do not give permission to Lori Doll-Speck to use the above-mentioned items in her
doctoral research.
Signature_______________________Date_____________________
Thank you,
Lori Doll-Speck
224
APPENDIX C. COVER LETTERS
Bowling Green State University
School of Leadership and Policy Studies
225
Higher Education and Student Affairs
330 Education Building
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0249
(419) 372-7382
FAX (419) 372-9382
[email protected]
Dear Student,
I am a doctoral student and associate professor at Mercy College of Northwest Ohio
working on my dissertation. I am interested in the study behavior of nursing students.
Research on study behavior of nursing students has the potential to change and
improve teaching and learning practices in higher education and in nursing education.
You have been randomly selected from accredited nursing programs across the U.S. to
be invited to participate in this study. I am asking that you complete the questionnaire
and return it to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope that your instructor has
provided to you. The questionnaire should take you approximately 20 minutes to
complete. Please return the survey no later than May 12, 2006. The questionnaire is
anonymous. The identity of those participating will not be known to the researcher. Do
not place your name or other identifying characteristics anywhere on the questionnaire.
There is no risk to you in completing the questionnaire. There is the remote possibility
that you would feel discomfort after filling out the questionnaire if you do not perceive
that you have good study habits or do not perceive that you spend as much time
studying as you should. Please see a counselor on your college campus should this
occur.
Participation in this research project is purely voluntary. By completing and returning the
questionnaire, you are giving your consent to participate. If you do not wish to
participate, please simply do not complete the questionnaire. You are free to withdraw
at any time from the study. If you have any questions regarding this research study,
please contact me, my advisor, or the HSRB chair at the telephone number or e-mail
address listed below. Also, if you would like results of my study, please contact me. In
advance, thank you very much for your participation in my research.
Sincerely,
Lori Doll-Speck, RN, MSN
Associate Professor Mercy College of Northwest Ohio
Work 419-251-1709 or home 419-872-2401
E-mail [email protected]
Advisor: Dr. Michael Coomes, PhD.
Work 419-372-7157
E-mail [email protected]
If you have questions or concerns about participant rights, please contact the Chair of
Human Subjects Review Board (HSRB) at BGSU 419-372-7716
226
Dear Chief Nurse Administrator,
I am a doctoral student and associate professor at Mercy College of Northwest Ohio
working on my dissertation. I am interested in the study behavior of nursing students.
Your program has been randomly selected from accredited nursing programs across
the U.S. to be invited to participate in this study. Research on study behavior of nursing
students has the potential to change and improve teaching and learning practices in
higher education and in nursing education. I am asking that you distribute the enclosed
questionnaire to 25 of your (sophomore, junior, or senior) nursing students. After they
complete the questionnaire, please ask your students to return them to me in the selfaddressed stamped envelope. The questionnaire should take your students
approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please tell the students to return the survey no
later than February 28, 2006. The questionnaire is anonymous. The identity of those
participating will not be known to the researcher. Please tell the students to not place
their name or other identifying characteristics anywhere on the questionnaire. The code
number that appears on the questionnaire will be used only for record-keeping
purposes.
Participation is purely voluntary. By completing and returning the questionnaire, the
student is giving his/her consent to participate. If the student does not wish to
participate, please tell him/her simply to not complete the questionnaire. The
participants are free to withdraw from the study at any time. If you have any questions
regarding this research study, please contact me, my advisor, or the HSRB chair at the
telephone number or e-mail address listed below. Also, if any student or administrator
would like results of my study, please contact me. In advance, thank you very much for
your participation in my research.
Sincerely,
Lori Doll-Speck, RN, MSN
Associate Professor Mercy College of Northwest Ohio
Work 419-251-1709 or home 419-872-2401
E-mail [email protected]
Advisor: Dr. Michael Coomes, PhD.
Work 419-372-7157
E-mail [email protected]
If you have questions or concerns about participant rights, please contact the Chair of
Human Subjects Review Board (HSRB) at BGSU 419-372-7716