The problem with 'study skills' programmes.

Note: Before reading this article, please note that it is slightly different to the regular articles I post here. This article is mainly for those interested in finding out the most effective way of approaching the larger problem of student difficulties with study. The content of this article is probably more appropriate for teachers and school principals, but students may also find it helpful. I make use of extensive referencing here too (not something I generally do in these articles) so that all points made are backed up by empirical research. Hope you find it interesting!

What are study skills programmes? Essentially, they constitute educational interventions or informational seminars aimed at helping students improve their academic practices. After reviewing numerous study-skills courses, Wingate (2006) identified the most typical features of such programmes as being: essay writing, note taking and revising for exams. When students learn to apply these skills correctly, they become highly effective, efficient, and independent learners (Hoover & Patton, 1995; Paul & Elder, 2002).

The aim of study skills programmes is ultimately to help improve student’s academic performance. While acknowledging the laudable goal of these programmes, it is also fundamentally important to assess whether they actually deliver on their promises. Given how ubiquitous such programmes have become, it is perhaps surprising to note that evidence for their efficacy is mixed at best. Research conducted as far back as the 1980’s, primarily assessing whether study skills programmes improve academic grades, suggests that study skills programmes are of questionable worth despite their prevalence and face validity. After a review of the literature, Gibbs (1981) concluded that study skills courses have little value. For example, he states that researchers have found “no difference in academic performance between those who had received guidance and a carefully chosen control group” (p. 69). Moreover, research on one of the most highly developed and heavily sold courses in Britain revealed “only short term differences in study habits and even a deterioration in some habits” (Gibbs, 1981, p. 69). Main (1980) came to a similar conclusion: “There is already enough disquiet to suggest that courses in methods are not a universal answer to student study difficulties” (p. 65).

Perhaps an even clearer indication of how research scientists have come to view the efficacy of study skills programmes can be seen in a study by Conway and Ross (1984). These researchers actually chose the context of a study skills programme for an experiment they were conducting precisely because they anticipated that the programme would be ineffective, despite promising to deliver academic improvement. Indeed, they too found that study skills interventions had no effect on academic outcomes. Generally, research from the 80’s and 90’s indicates that direct teaching of general, all-purpose study skills is not effective (e.g. Garer, 1990; McCombs, 1984; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Tabberer, 1984). More contemporary researchers have also voiced concern regarding the dubious nature of many study skills programmes. For example, Wingate (2006) was highly critical of study skills programmes as the title of her report ‘Doing away with study skills’ suggests. Wingate states that the entire process of teaching students general strategies such as ‘taking notes’ is of no value at all in terms of academic advancement. While these generic skills may intuitively seem useful for students, the evidence that they lead to lasting behavioural change is simply not there.

So, if teaching students study skills is not the answer to improve academic performance, what is? It may well be the case that the biggest issue is not which specific study strategy the student should use, but rather the extent to which the student can actually engage with academic work at all. Gettinger and Seibert (2002) make an important distinction between skills in the domain of cognition (e.g., note taking, interpreting visuals, using references) and skills in the domain of self-regulation (e.g., study habits, time management, self-management). For study skills in the domain of cognition to be of any real benefit, students must first be willing and capable of engaging with the work. In other words, it makes little sense teaching a student how to take notes effectively if that student has no capacity to engage with any type of study in the first place.

One might argue, perhaps even anecdotally, that study skills interventions really are effective. However, it may be the case that previous academic successes attributed to students participation in a study skills seminar, actually had little to do with the specific study strategies outlined in the seminar. Many researchers have suggested that the purported benefits of study skills programmes stem simply from the fact that students participate in higher levels of engagement with academic work in the aftermath of these programmes (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; Loxterman, Beck, & McKeown, 1994; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Thus, any net benefit may have little to do with the utilization of suggested study strategies but rather an increase in student willingness. However, it is also highly questionable as to whether this increased engagement is sustained by students over any significant period of time or is merely a short lived surge in action resulting from a very temporary increase in motivation.

Put simply, the larger part of the problem may simply be one of student engagement. According to Jones, Slate, Blake, and Holifield (1992), a hugely important factor determining student success is simply whether they can initiate study and remain focused. When unsuccessful learners engage in studying, they do so in long, infrequent sessions. Commonly, they will attempt to study all material the night before an exam. Put simply, for whatever reason, they do not possess the skills to consistently allocate sufficient time to study. When the student does get around to studying, it is often interrupted by friends, daydreaming, music, or poor concentration (Nicaise & Gettinger, 1995). Successful students on the other hand, are willing to engage in study and stick with it until they have met goals which are in line with their own standards (Gersten, 1998).

Proponents of study skills programmes might well advocate the importance of giving students the necessary tools they need in order to make the most of their study time. However, this approach may well be flawed on its very face. For instance, it could be argued that spoon-feeding student’s best practices for study is overly dictatorial. Can students have an optimal learning experience using study strategies that have been directly provided via instruction, and not derived autonomously? Psychologists have known for some time that not everyone learns in a similar way and that there is huge variation in the approaches people take when engaging with academic work (e.g., Pritchard, 2013; Richardson, 2011; Dunn & Dunn, 1978). Thus, is it realistic to expect all students to improve performance based on the recommendations of a generalized ‘one size fits all’ approach to study outlined during a seminar? The typical study skills approach may be too broad in scope to be of any real benefit to the individualized student.

While it is unclear whether study skills programmes have any long term positive influence on academic achievement, one thing that is very clear is the large scale problem of student engagement with academic work. The fact that students experience difficulty engaging with study is no secret. The extent of this issue is less widely understood however. A 1990 study of 12th graders indicated that 71% of students spent no more than 60 minutes each day and that 25% did not study at all (National Center for Education Statistics). Around the same period, research by Gallagher, Golin, and Kelleher (1992) suggested that 52% of students expressed a moderate to high need for help with issues of procrastination. This need shows few signs of abating with more recent research indicating that 80-95% of students engage in procrastination (Steel, 2007).

In conclusion, while there are mixed findings on the efficacy of study skills interventions, it may be the case that simply addressing the underlying causes that lead to student procrastination could be an effective way of addressing the problem of poor student engagement. This, in turn, would facilitate a more proactive approach to students study behaviour.

Thanks for reading!

References

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.

Conway, M., & Ross, M. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of personality and social psychology, 47(4), 738.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallagher, R. P., Golin, A., & Kelleher, K. (1992). The personal, career, and learning skills needs of college students. Journal of College Student Development.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students withlearning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

Gibbs, G. (1981). Teaching Students to Learn: A Student-Centered Approach. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press

Hoover, J. J., & Patton, P. R. (1995). Teaching students with learning problems to use study skills: A teacher’s guide. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., Blake, P. C., & Holifield, S. D. (1992). Two investigationsof the academic skills of junior and senior high school students. High School Journal, 76(1), 24-29.

Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinkingaloud during reading on students’ comprehension of more or less coherenttext. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 353-368.

Main, A. (1980). Encouraging effective learning: an approach to study counselling. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1990). National Assessment of Educational Progress Report. Washington, DC: Author.

Nicaise, M., & Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering reading comprehension in collegestudents. Reading Psychology, 16, 283-337.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study andlearn (part I). Journal of Developmental Education, 26(1), 36–37.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Pritchard, A. (2013). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Routledge.

Richardson, J. T. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 288-293.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, J. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.Review of Education Research, 64, 479-530.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 65.

Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457-469.

#Teachers