SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Dharma Jairam (1)
  Kenneth A. Kiewra (2)
  Sarah Rogers-Kasson (2)
  Melissa Patterson-Hazley (2)
  Kim Marxhausen (2)
  
• 关键词：SQ3R ; SOAR ; Learning strategies
• 刊名：Instructional Science
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：May 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：42
• 期：3
• 页码：409-420
• 全文大小：239 KB
• 参考文献：1. Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. / Reading Research Quarterly, / 18, 27-5. CrossRef
  2. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1985). Studying strategies and their implication for textbook design. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), / Designing useable texts (pp. 159-77). Orlando: Academic Press.
  3. Atkinson, R. K., Levin, J. R., Kiewra, K. A., Meyers, T., Kim, S. I., Atkinson, L. A., et al. (1999). Matrix and mnemonic text-processing adjuncts: Comparing and combining their components. / Journal of Educational Psychology, / 91, 342-57. CrossRef
  4. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students-lecture notes and their relation to test performance. / Teaching of Psychology, / 12, 28-2. CrossRef
  5. Bausch, A., & Becker, K. (2001). / A study of students-lack of study and organizational strategies with middle school and high school students. Master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Masters Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455461). Retrieved from the ERIC database.
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. / Australian Journal of Education, / 32, 127-38. CrossRef
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). / How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington: National Academy Press.
  8. Butler, T.H. (1983). Effect of subject and training variables on the SQ3R study method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
  9. Caverly, D. C. (1985, December). Textbook study strategies: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.
  10. Cook, L., & Mayer, R. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressely & J. R. Levin (Eds.), / Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 87-31). New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossRef
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). / Mixed methods approaches. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  12. Crooks, S., White, D., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. / Journal of Educational Computing Research, / 37, 369-91. CrossRef
  13. Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. Bower (Ed.), / The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 261-03). New York: Academic Press.
  14. Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (2000). / Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. / Review of Educational Research, / 40, 707-21. CrossRef
  16. Glenny, A. M., Altman, D. G., Song, F., Sakarovitch, C., Deeks, J. J., D’Amico, R., et al. (2005). Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. / Health Technology Assessment, / 9, 1-.
  17. Gubbels, P.S. (1999). College student studying: A collected case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  18. Harp, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. / Journal of Educational Psychology, / 89, 92-02. CrossRef
  19. Harwell, M. R. (1988). Univariate vs. multivariate tests: ANOVA versus MANOVA. / Educational Research Quarterly, / 12, 20-8.
  20. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2009). An investigation of the SOAR study method. / Journal of Advanced Academics, / 20, 602-29. CrossRef
  21. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. / Journal of Educational Psychology, / 102, 601-14. CrossRef
  22. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborate studying with concept mapping. / Science, / 331(6018), 772-75. CrossRef
  23. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? / Memory, / 17, 471-79. CrossRef
  24. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. (1999, April). / Indexing, extraction, and localization effects from learning from matrices, outlines, and text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  25. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. (2010). What makes the matrix so effective: An empirical test of indexing, extraction, and localization effects. / Instructional Science, / 38, 679-05. CrossRef
  26. Kiewra, K. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. / Contemporary Educational Psychology, / 8, 366-74. CrossRef
  27. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of note taking, review, and attendance at a lecture. / Human Learning, / 4, 73-7.
  28. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students-note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. / Contemporary Educational Psychology, / 10, 378-86. CrossRef
  29. Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. / Instructional Science, / 16, 233-49. CrossRef
  30. Kiewra, K. (2005). / Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
  31. Kiewra, K. A. (2009). / Helping students SOAR to success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
  32. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. / American Educational Research Journal, / 29, 303-23. CrossRef
  33. Larson, R., & Farber, B. (2012). / Elementary statistics: Picturing the world. New York: Prentice Hall.
  34. Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1995). / Teaching children to be literate: A reflective approach. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.
  35. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning. / Review of Educational Research, / 49, 371-83. CrossRef
  36. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. / Educational Psychology Review, / 8, 357-71. CrossRef
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2002). / The Promise of educational psychology Volume 2: Teaching for meaningful learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.
  38. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the designing of multimedia instruction. / American Psychologist, / 63, 760-69. CrossRef
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2011). / Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.
  40. McCormick, S., & Cooper, J. Q. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled students-literal comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. / Reading Psychology, / 12, 239-71. CrossRef
  41. Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), / Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  42. Rachal, K. C., Daigle, S., & Rachal, W. S. (2007). Learning problems reported by college students: Are they using learning strategies? / Journal of Instructional Psychology, / 34, 191-99.
  43. Robinson, F. P. (1941). / Effective study. New York: Harper & Row.
  44. Robinson, F. P. (1962). / Effective reading. New York: Harper & Row.
  45. Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A., Beth, A., Odom, S., Ya-Ping, H., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. / Journal of Educational Research, / 100, 103-11. CrossRef
  46. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. / Journal of Educational Psychology, / 87, 455-67. CrossRef
  47. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. / Review of Educational Research, / 2, 181-21. CrossRef
  48. Scappaticci, E. T. (1977). A study of SQ3R and select and recite reading and study skills methods in college classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem.
  49. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. / Research in Science Education, / 36(1-), 111-39. CrossRef
  50. Spor, M., & Schneider, B. (1999). Content reading strategies: What teachers know, use, and want to learn. / Reading Research and Instruction, / 38, 221-31. CrossRef
  51. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). / Beyond IQ: A triachic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. / Journal of Educational Psychology, / 99, 808-20. CrossRef
  53. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. / Computers in Human Behavior, / 24, 1552-571. CrossRef
  54. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). / Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Harper & Row.
  55. Tadlock, D. F. (1978). SQ3R: Why it works, based on information processing theory of learning. / Journal of Reading, / 22, 110-12.
  56. Titsworth, S. (2004). Students-note taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. / Communication Education, / 53, 305-20. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Dharma Jairam (1)
  Kenneth A. Kiewra (2)
  Sarah Rogers-Kasson (2)
  Melissa Patterson-Hazley (2)
  Kim Marxhausen (2)
  
  1. Pennsylvania State University, Erie, PA, USA
  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0345, USA
  
• ISSN：1573-1952

文摘

Although researchers have long investigated ways to improve study habits and raise achievement, few studies compare study strategy systems with one another. No study to date has compared the long popular SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review) system with the more modern SOAR (Select, Organize, Associate, Regulate) system. This study directly compared SQ3R and SOAR to determine which is most effective. College students trained in the SQ3R or SOAR system and given corresponding study materials used their respective method to study a text in preparation for a test assessing fact, relationship, and concept learning. Results confirmed that students who used the SOAR system outperformed those who used the SQ3R system and learned 20?% more relationships, 14?% more facts, and 13?% more concepts. Results were attributed to SOAR’s cognitive processing advantages over SQ3R.