College Students’ Beliefs about Exam Preparation

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 22, 192–212 (1997)ARTICLE NO. EP970933

College Students’ Beliefs about Exam Preparation

Shawn Van Etten, Geoffrey Freebern, and Michael Pressley

Department of Educational Psychology and Statistics,University at Albany, State University of New York

The goal of this research was to detail college students’ beliefs about the examinationsthey face. We interviewed those closest to the exam preparation process, those whomake the decisions about when, how, and what to study, college students themselves.Students responded to progressively more focussed questions. The conclusions thatemerged from several rounds of questioning were checked with a new sample ofstudents. What emerged was a complex set of beliefs about the examination preparationprocess. The students expressed beliefs about four aspects of exam preparation: (a)motivations to study for exams, (b) strategies for exam preparation, (c) affect aboutexam preparation, and (d) effects of external factors on study (e.g., instructors, previousexam experiences, social environment, physical environment, and content that is to bestudied). q 1997 Academic Press

This is a study about college students’ beliefs about the examinations theyface and how to cope with them (i.e., the examination process). It is aninterview study, much more a qualitative study than a quantitative study.Specifically, college students’ understandings about the nature of studyingand its regulation were induced from comments and interview responses(Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

THEORETICAL SENSITIVITIES

We came to this investigation with certain theoretical sensitivities(Strauss & Corbin, 1990), certain expectations based on knowledge ofprevious theory and research. A prominent direction in the psychology ofstudying has been the specification of its components when studying isdone well, with a number of theorists and researchers contributing to thisbody of knowledge (for reviews, see Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, andZimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Based on this body of work, we expectedthat students in this investigation might report on strategies as well asother components of self-regulated study.

Self-regulated study has been conceived as based largely on student studytactics and strategies (e.g., Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1988, 1990).

Correspondence regarding this article and reprint requests can be directed to the authors,Department of Educational Psychology and Statistics, University at Albany, SUNY, AlbanyNY 12222.

192

0361-476X/97 $25.00Copyright q 1997 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP

193BELIEFS ABOUT EXAM PREPARATION

For example, in Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ (1986) questionnaire study,high-achieving high school students reported greater use of a variety of strate-gies than did low-achieving high school students, including the following:organizing and transforming to-be-learned information, seeking information(e.g., from the library), notetaking, self-rewarding (e.g., going to a movie asa reward for doing well on a test), rehearsing and memorizing, seeking assis-tance from someone else (i.e., peer, teacher, or other adult), and reviewing(i.e., texts, notes, and tests).

According to contemporary self-regulation theorists, study strategies areregulated largely by students’ understandings about cognitive processes (i.e.,metacognition; e.g., Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993, Chap. 7) and their motiva-tional beliefs (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Dweck, 1986;Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For example, there has been a great deal of evidencegenerated in recent years to support the conclusion that students have fine-grained beliefs about what they can do and what they cannot do (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs; Bandura, 1995). These self-efficacy beliefs contribute greatlyto the willingness of students to tackle new tasks, with students more likely toelect participation in areas of perceived competence than in areas of perceivedweakness. That there are linkages between what students know and believeabout studying and their actual studying points to the need to understandstudents’ perceptions and attitudes about studying.

Student differences in knowledge and skillful application of strategies,metacognition, and motivational beliefs have been useful in validating con-temporary models of self-regulated learning, with these differences typicallyconstrued as the products of past experiences by cognitive–behavioral theo-rists and researchers. That is, whether students are strategic, metacognitivelyaware, and in possession of appropriate motivational beliefs depends largelyon their personal histories. There are important reciprocal relationships be-tween the environment and the individual, however: Experientially determineddifferences in strategies, metacognition, and motivational beliefs determinesubsequent experiences and the effects of those experiences.

There has been increasing recognition in recent years that studying varieswith characteristics of the learning situation. For example, Entwistle (1987)specified how a surface approach, rather than a deep approach, is likely tobe elicited by an uninteresting and irrelevant curriculum, heavy workload,and fact-oriented exams. Ramsden (1987) also made the case that althoughsome students are generally deeper processors than others, students who oftenprocess material deeply sometimes process superficially and sometimes re-spond to grading pressures more than to a desire to understand material well.

That a complete model of student studying and achievement must admitsituational variability has been evident in recent analyses. Thomas, Rohwer,and their associates (Thomas, Bol, Warkentin, Wilson, Strage, & Rohwer,1993; Thomas & Rohwer, 1987, 1993) have studied high school and college

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP

194 VAN ETTEN, FREEBERN, AND PRESSLEY

courses with respect to the demands made on students, the supports providedby instructors (e.g., outlines; study guides; feedback on tests, quizzes, andhomework), and the compensations made by instructors (e.g., extra creditopportunities, exact test items provided before test). Although the results intheir studies were extremely complicated, in general, Thomas, Rohwer, andtheir colleagues observed that students learned more in more demandingcourses. They also observed more active study in demanding courses, espe-cially when instructors provided supports for study. In short, study activityand achievement both depended greatly on the characteristics of courses,consistent with the conclusion that studying and learning are situationallysensitive.

Using interview methodology similar to the approach employed in theinvestigation reported here, Van Meter, Yokoi, and Pressley (1994) inter-viewed college students about their use of one important study strategy—notetaking. Students reported great situational variability in when and howthey took notes, for example, being more likely to do so when exams weredriven by lecture content. They reported great variability in the quality of thenotes they take as a function of the situation, with the styles of some lecturersmuch more compatible with effective notetaking than other lecturers (e.g.,notes are easier to take when lecturers are organized, provide good outlines,and stick with their outlines). Student studying was also reported as varyingas a function of the quality of notes that could be taken in a class. Thus,students reported more cooperative study efforts (e.g., getting together tofigure out notes taken) and more reading of textbook material when the styleof the lecturer was not conducive with good notetaking.

In summary, researchers in the past 2 decades have begun to map out thenature of academic studying, with most of the relevant work conducted withcollege students and some complementary research with high school students.It is clear, based on previous research, that academic studying is complex,varying from student to student and from situation to situation. Even so, wecould locate no investigation that attempted to map students’ overall percep-tions of the examination preparation process, the many factors that activelyaffect exam preparation, at least from the students’ perspective. Moreover,there was good reason to expect that there might be more factors critical inexam preparation than the ones emphasized in the empirical analyses to date.For example, despite historically important conceptual analyses of teachingand learning in college that have included factors such as affect and thecollege ecology as important in determining successful studying, (e.g.,McKeatchie, 1961, 1994; Pauk, 1984), the empirical analyses of studyinghave been silent with respect to affect and characteristics of the studyingenvironment. Our opting for an inductive approach was also influenced byan awareness that the complexity of studying has been more apparent whenmore inductive approaches have been used in the past, such as by Entwistle,

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


Ramsden, Marton and their colleagues (see Entwistle, 1987) and by VanMeter et al. (1994). In this study, the intent was to maximize the likelihoodthat students would provide information pertaining to all they know aboutstudying. This was achieved by successively questioning groups of studentsuntil only functionally equivalent information began to emerge.

METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Students have understandings about their academic world (e.g., Thorkild-sen & Nicholls, 1991) and knowledge of the conscious decisions they mustmake to negotiate the academic demands made on them (e.g., Van Meter etal., 1994). Such knowledge can be tapped through interviews, analogous towhen knowledge engineers, who are designing artificial intelligence systems(i.e., expert systems), question people about the decisions they make whenconfronting particular problems that an expert system must be programmedto solve (e.g., Diaper, 1989; Meyer & Booker, 1991; Scott, Clayton, & Gibson,1991). Social scientists sometimes consider such interviewing to be ethno-graphic interviewing (e.g., Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979). This type of inter-viewing begins with open-ended questions. More focused questions areshaped as the open-ended responses are analyzed. These new questions areintended to fill in information gaps based on the results of the open-endedinterviewing. They are then posed to new samples of students, permittingrefinement of the conclusions reached previously, with the possibility thatstill more questions will emerge from the responses to these new questions.Thus, cycles of questioning and analyses continue until there are no newissues emerging from analyses (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Initially, every effort is made in this type of interviewing not to provideresponse alternatives to participants, but rather require participants to generateresponses so that the results reflect their construal of the situation, in contrastto the researcher’s a priori conception of the situation. This contrasts withother interview approaches, such as those used by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986, 1988, 1990) and by Entwistle’s group, in which participantsindicated whether they used processes named by the researcher, for example,by indicating agreement to statements such as, ‘‘I usually set out to understandthoroughly the meaning of what I am asked to read,’’ and, ‘‘I tend to choosesubjects with a lot of factual content rather than theoretical kinds of subjects’’(Ramsden, 1992, p. 52). Of course, questions to subsequent respondents weremore focused in these investigations, as the model began to emerge and gapsin its completeness became obvious.

Once Van Meter et al. (1994) obtained no new insights from studentsresponding to open-ended questions about notetaking, they engaged in a quan-titative exercise to increase confidence in the conclusions emanating from theopen-ended approach. Each of the claims made by students during open-ended interviewing was put in the form of a statement, with a large sample

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


of students asked to indicate their agreement with these statements. Onlythose claims that survived this quantitative check, which were most of theconclusions emerging from the open-ended interviews, were retained. VanMeter et al.’s (1994) previous success with this multicycle, open-ended quali-tative approach followed by a quantitative check was the basis of the method-ological plan adopted here. In particular, we expected this approach to yielda great deal of information about students’ understandings of the examinationpreparation process.

METHODS

Participants

The 142 undergraduate students who participated in this study attended one private and twopublic universities in the northeastern United States. There were four phases of data collectionand analyses. The first three phases involved small-group meetings and face-to-face respondingto open-ended questions. There were 24 students in Phase 1, a different 11 students participatingin Phase 2, and another 19 participating in Phase 3. The Phases 1–3 students included 27 malesand 27 females ranging from 17 to 45 years of age. There were 41 English-first-language,white students; 6 Spanish-first-language, white participants; 5 African Americans; and 2 NativeAmericans. These students came from 19 different majors. Phase 4 included 88 participants,with 54 females and 34 males, ranging from 19 to 41 years of age. In Phase 4, there were 74English-first-language, white students; 2 Spanish-first-language, white participants; 6 Asian-originstudents; and 4 African Americans. The Phase 4 students came from 21 different academicmajors.

Data Collection, Analyses, and Preliminary Results

There was continuous movement between data collection and analyses in this study (Bogdan &Biklen, 1982; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and thus, there were emergingresults as the study proceeded. These intermediate results affected subsequent methods, specifi-cally, determining the questions that were posed in subsequent phases of the research reportedhere. (Because of space considerations, and because we do not want to distract attention fromthe final results, we do not present the intermediate outcomes in any detail.)

Phase 1 data collection and analysis. Six small groups of students, with four students pergroup on average, participated in Phase 1. After completing a consent form and a sheet collectingdemographic information, the Phase 1 students were informed about the purpose of the research:

We are conducting research to identify all variables that can affect students’ test prepara-tion. We will ask several questions. Please answer openly and honestly. Anything youtell us is completely confidential, and no one outside of this room will ever be able toassociate your name to information provided in this interview. Since we cannot leadyour answers, we request that you provide any information that you believe is pertinentto the discussion. If you disagree with, or wish to add to, another student’s response,please feel free to jump into the conversation.

The questions presented to participants in Phase 1 were very general, intended to elicit abroad range of response about students’ knowledge of examinations and their reactions to theexamination process. Each group was asked the following questions:

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


• Do you prepare for tests?• Why do you prepare for tests?• When do you prepare for tests?• Where do you prepare for tests?• How do you prepare for tests?• How long do you prepare for tests?• Is there anything you would like to add or clarify?

The order of questions varied between groups in Phase 1 because we felt that it wouldmaximize the range of possible responses students would provide. This was a desideratum giventhe intent of this study to produce a framework capturing as wide a range of student perceptionsas possible about studying for exams.

The first two authors were present for five of the six groups and took notes summarizingstudents’ responses, with one researcher interviewing the sixth group. In addition, all interviewswere tape recorded to permit additional review.

Following the first group interview, both interviewers separately coded their notes into prelimi-nary categories. In order to assure that the two researchers were coding at comparable levels ofdetail, they exchanged and compared their preliminary results. Both felt that their preliminaryresults were similar in detail and content. Then, five more groups were interviewed, with theresearchers each believing that no new categories were being identified by the end of the sixthgroup of interviewees. At this point, the two researchers compared the categories and relationshipsthey had identified. There was clear agreement about the existence of 15 preliminary categories(e.g., external factors affecting test preparation, test preparation strategies, instructor effects ontest preparation, affect). Although one of the researchers had more specific instances withincategories (i.e., 50 specific instances) than the other researcher (i.e., 33 instances), there wasclear agreement between the two researchers about the information provided by the Phase 1participants (i.e., some of the 33 instances identified by the one researcher could be identifiedas subsuming several of the specific category members of the researcher identifying 50 instances).

In the end, there were only two points of disagreement between the two researchers aboutcategories in the Phase 1 coding: (a) One of the researchers concluded that the students hadindicated extensive cheating, while the other felt it was mentioned only a few times (i.e., onewas more certain that cheating was a category than the other researcher). Thus, the researchersresolved to ask Phase 2 students a specific question about cheating. (b) Only one of the researchersconcluded that students claimed to use feedback from tests to correct misconceptions as a testpreparation strategy. The researchers resolved to ask Phase 2 students a direct question aboutinformation the students used to aid test preparation. They also resolved that during Phase 2 andsubsequent phases to be especially alert for information about cheating as a strategy used fortest preparation and use of feedback from tests to correct misconceptions.

Phase 2 data collection and analysis. As was expected, the two researchers were able toidentify a number of information gaps in the Phase 1 data—for example, categories and categorymembers that were identified but not fully elaborated by the Phase 1 participants. A set ofquestions were developed to tap these issues as well as the cheating and tests-as-feedback issues,with these questions then posed to Phase 2 participants. The Phase 2 questions included thefollowing:

• How do instructors influence your preparation for tests?• Do your feelings or emotions influence how you prepare for tests?• Do you study to get a good grade, to learn the material well, or both?• Are tests necessary? Why or why not?• How do tests affect your learning?• How much of your assigned readings do you complete? Why?

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


• Is group test preparation better or worse? When and why?• In what ways have you or others cheated to prepare for a test?• What type of information do you seek to aid your test preparation, and from where

or who?• Is there anything you would like to add or clarify?

Four interview groups of 2 to 4 students apiece participated in Phase 2. Unlike Phase 1, duringPhase 2, the researchers followed up less than complete student responses with requests for moredetailed answers. For example, when a student stated that, ‘‘Unclear instructors make it hard toprepare for a test,’’ the researcher asked the students, ‘‘How do unclear instructors make it hardto prepare for a test?’’

As occurred during Phase 1, the researchers coded the new data into categories and identifiedcategory members. As they did so, consistent with the method of constant comparison (Strauss &Corbin, 1990), they continuously checked whether the new data supported old categories andprevious, tentative hypotheses about relationships between emerging categories. Adjustmentswere made as necessary to bring the emerging categories in line with the new data. Additionalinformation gaps also became apparent as this coding occurred, necessitating Phase 3.

Phase 3 data collection and analysis. Three of the Phase 2 questions were repeated in Phase3, because more seemed to be needed regarding the issues being tapped by the questions:

• Do you study to get a good grade, to learn the material well, or both?• Are tests necessary? Why or why not?• How do tests affect your learning?

The Phase 2 information gaps also stimulated the following new questions, which were posedto Phase 3 participants:

• How can an instructor with a primary language different from your language influenceyour preparation for tests?

• Would you learn more with or without tests?• Do you read assignments? If yes, how much?• In what ways have you or others cheated to prepare for a test?• Students report sometimes seeking information to aid their test preparation when they

do not know something—for example, from their instructor, a previous instructor, aclassmate, a librarian, etc.). What inhibits you from seeking information from theseor other sources?

• Do you differentially prepare for a test in an elective versus a major course?

As in Phase 2, ambiguous responses were followed up with additional questions.The Phase 3 participants took part in one of three small groups. Only three groups were

interviewed because of the great similarity in the responses of groups 1, 2, and 3.Both of the researchers coded all of the Phase 3 data into categories. Again, one researcher

had more total category members than the other researcher, representing slightly more generalcoding by the one researcher than the other. After negotiating agreement, by the end of Phase3, there still were 15 preliminary categories. Each had category members subsumed under it,each making an important point about test preparation. Throughout Phase 3, consistent with themethod of constant comparison, the researchers continuously appraised whether the categories andrelationships identified in previous phases were supported by the new data, making adjustments asnecessary to bring the emerging categories in line with all of the data. It became apparent to the

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


researchers during Phase 3 that no new categories or relationships were being identified. UsingStrauss and Corbin’s (1990) term, the model seemed to be saturated.

Phase 4 data collection and analysis. Each of the claims coded by respondents in Phases 1to 3 was converted to a quantifiable item, with all of the items placed on a questionnaireadministered to 88 college students. There were a total of 112 items on this questionnaire, with46 in the form of questions that were responded to on a ‘‘never’’ (0) to ‘‘always’’ (7) scale,such as the following:

(a) If the total assigned readings are less than usual, do you complete all of the assignedreadings?(b) Does the grade you receive on a test influence how you prepare for a second testin this course?

For each of these questions, there was an expectation based on the open-ended responses. Theresearchers had predicted for each item whether its mean would be closer to the ‘‘never’’ end(i.e., 0–2.5), in the sometimes range (2.5–4.5), or closer to the ‘‘always’’ (i.e., 4.5–7.0) end ofthe scale. For all 46 ‘‘never’’-to-‘‘always’’ questions, the mean response value fell in the rangeof the scale expected based on open-ended responses. For example, during open-ended responses,students indicated that completing all assigned readings often was challenging, even when therewas less reading than usual. Hence, the Phase 4 subjects’ mean Å 4.1 (SD Å 1.5)—a mid-scalerating—to example item (a) was consistent with the open-ended coding. That is, during Phases1 through 3, the students made clear that they were not always able to complete all assignments;they also told us that sometimes they could do so and hence, there was a mean rating in thesometimes part of the scale. In contrast, students indicated during open-ended responding thatresults on early tests in a course were important in shaping subsequent study and hence, themean of 5.53 (SD Å 1.25), which was much closer to the ‘‘always’’ than the ‘‘never’’ end ofthe scale, was consistent with open-ended coding.

An additional 34 questions could be answered on a ‘‘decreases a lot’’ (0) to ‘‘increases a lot’’(7) scale, including the following examples:

(c) If an instructor presents clear lectures, is test preparation easier?(d) If there were no tests, how would the amount you study be affected?

Again, based on the open-ended responses, the researchers predicted whether the mean responseto an item would be closer to the ‘‘decreases a lot’’ (i.e., 0–2.5) end of the scale, the middleof the scale (2.5–4.5), or the ‘‘increases a lot’’ (i.e., 4.5–7) end of the scale. The means for all34 items fell in the predicted parts of the scale. For example, during open-ended responding,students indicated that clear lectures greatly facilitated studying for an exam, and hence, thePhase 4 respondents’ mean rating of 6.08 (SD Å 0.8) for item (c), within a point of the ‘‘increasesa lot’’ anchor, was consistent with open-ended responding. During open-ended responding,students indicated that the amount of studying they did was very much determined by theexistence of exams, with the Phase 4 responses to example item (d) consistent with this claim,mean Å 2.02 (SD Å 1.26), much closer to the ‘‘decreases a lot’’ anchor than to the ‘‘increasesa lot’’ anchor.

The Phase 4 students were given a list of 18 instructor characteristics (e.g., only tests ondiscussed materials, cancels many classes) and were required to decide whether a characteristicwas associated with an instructor who was good with respect to facilitating test preparationversus bad. Basically, for every item, at least 90% of the Phase 5 participants viewed characteris-tics consistent with indications during open-ended responding (e.g., good professors only test onmaterial that has been covered, bad professors cancel classes).

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


The Phase 4 respondents were provided a list of 14 strategies and were asked to indicatewhich they used as part of their test preparation. Thirteen of the 14 approaches were indicatedby at least 25% of respondents, with one process (making stories) endorsed by only 20% ofparticipants. In general, more general processes (e.g., read, take and read notes, attend class)were endorsed by more than 90% of the sample. All rote processes (memorize, highlight, rewrite)were endorsed by more than 90% of participants; the more transformative processing was en-dorsed by fewer participants (reorganizing by 34% of participants, making acronyms by 32% ofparticipants, making images by 25% of participants). The main point here, however, is that eachof the strategic processes cited during open-ended coding was indicated as part of test preparationby at least 20% of the Phase 4 participants.

In short, Phase 4 provided confirmation of the main points coded during Phases 1–3. Thisincreased confidence in the conclusions emerging from open-ended responding.

Phase 5 axial coding. The final step was to arrange the categories and subcategories in relationto one another, what Strauss and Corbin (1990) referred to as axial coding. The three authorsof this paper carried out this activity, making adjustments until all were satisfied that each claimmade by participants was coded in the category that made most sense and the categories wererelated to each other sensibly and completely. The result of this axial coding is the final resultof a grounded theory analysis and for this study is detailed prosaically in the final results section.

FINAL RESULTS: STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT STUDYING

The 15 preliminary categories of students’ beliefs about preparing for ex-ams could be organized into four overarching categories, the ones emergingfrom the Phase 5 coding of the data. In general, students have beliefs abouttheir motivations for studying, strategies for coping with test demands, affectabout test preparation, and external factors affecting test preparation. Thehighlights of the results are summarized in Table 1. The coverage in thisResults section parallels the summary of points in Table 1. (Readers shouldkeep in mind that what is being reported throughout the results section arestudent beliefs about examination preparation, rather than conclusions aboutvariables that objectively affect examination preparation and outcomes.)

Motivations for Studying

The students were emphatic that examinations per se motivate studying.Notetaking during class would be reduced if there were no tests. Most activestudy of course content would cease without examinations. Even so, somestudents did not feel that what they really learned in their courses would bemuch affected, believing that much of test preparation time involves superfi-cial processing. In fact, some students expressed the belief that if there wereno tests, more time might be spent making elaborative connections withrespect to content.

Students reported that whether they studied or not depended more thananything else on whether they believed studying would make a differencein how well they did. When they believe they would understand thematerial better with additional effort, this effort attribution increases moti-vation to study. When they feel either that they have very high ability orvery low ability (alternatively, high or low prior knowledge) with respect

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


TABLE 1HIGHLIGHTS OF STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT EXAM PREPARATION

Motivations for Studying

• Obtain good grades on examines is the primary motivation for studying.• Students reported motivation to study is tied to perceptions that studying will help obtain

the grade they want (e.g., if believe they already know material and can get a good gradewithout studying, they study less).

• There are a variety of other motivations for studying (e.g., learning the material, meetingexpectations of self and others, getting a good job).

• Expectations about the likely grade on a test affects studying and effort.

Strategies for Coping With Test Demands

• Students can keep up with readings, having a variety of strategies for coping with thevolume of reading in college.

• Students recognize that valuable information is presented in class and that attending canreduce study efforts.

• Students manage test preparation time, which is a precious commodity, jugglingnonstudying commitments to permit study time. Although students recognize the value ofstudying well in advance in tests and distributing study, cramming sometimes occurs.

• Students use study strategies, which vary depending on type of test questions expected.• They reduce distractions in the study environment.• Students prepare in study groups, recognizing a number of benefits to group presentation,

although also aware that groups vary in effectiveness.• They cheat, with students aware of many ways to gain unfair advantages during exam

preparation and while taking examinations.

Affect and Test Preparation

• Positive mood can either facilitate or interfere with studying.• Negative mood prevents effective study.• Students dislike some types of tests more than others.

External Factors Affecting Test Preparation

• Instructors can do much to make preparation easier or more difficult.• Experiencing exams in a course provides valuable information about subsequent examines

in the course.• Social environmental variables can undermine studying (e.g., demands of friends and

family) or facilitate studying (e.g., encouragement of friends and family).• Physical environment can support study (e.g., if comfortable and quiet) or make studying

more difficult (e.g., if noisy, too warm, inadequately lighted).• The characteristics to the to-be-studied content affect study, with some materials (e.g.,

major courses, content perceived to be important, difficult but manageable content) givengreater attention than others (e.g., material so difficult that student perceives there is nohope of learning it).

to the material covered on a test, the ability (prior knowledge) attributionreduces their motivation to study. That is, when students perceive thatability or prior knowledge determines the outcome of a test rather thaneffort, they study less.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


Students reported many other motivations to study. These included learningthe material; fulfilling potential; boosting feelings of self-efficacy and self-esteem, through accomplishment and achievement; meeting or exceeding theexpectations of others, including parents, siblings, and instructors; determin-ing for themselves if they can achieve by trying hard to do so; not appearingdumb; getting a good job; going to graduate school; and paying back parentswho provided the tuition for school.

Expectations about grades matter, such that students study hard enough toobtain the grade they expect. For example, students believed that the studentwith C expectations who passes early exams in a course without much effortoften is not motivated to study for later exams, believing they can achievetheir low expectation without additional expenditure of effort. Students gettingA’s on early tests without much effort infer they can continue to achieve ata high level in the course without much effort.

Strategies for Coping With Test DemandsTest preparation is very complex. It involves strategic coordination of a

number of resources.Keep up with readings. Some students reported reading assignments before

class so that the relevance of the lecturer’s points would be especially obvious,with the lecture an opportunity to clarify or elaborate on points made inreadings. Some read in advance of class in order to demonstrate their knowl-edge of the material to the professor or other students. Still others take thetactic of reading material after it was covered in class, using the text toelaborate on information presented in class.

Students rarely read all of their assignments. Whether a given assignmentis completed depends largely on how many total assignments a student hasduring that week, so that if there are fewer assignments, there is a higherprobability that any given assignment for the week will be completed.

There are a variety of strategies for dealing with the high volume ofreading relative to the amount of time that can be devoted to it, includingthe following:

• Students read rapidly in order to cover as much as possible, sometimes even skimmingmaterial. Thorough reading is more likely if texts are clear, coherent, and relevant(i.e., used in class discussions or covering content on tests).

• Students read what is most informative, including introductions and conclusions,bold-faced terms and definitions, tables, figures, and graphs. Careful reading some-times is complemented by skimming of the rest of a reading. Careful reading ofmaterial is more likely if the readings are covered in class discussions or on tests.

• Students prioritize readings. In deciding what is critical, students consider whetherthey need to improve in a particular subject, whether the material is manageable(e.g., impossible to understand material is not manageable), whether an assignmentis in their major area of study, and whether the assignment is interesting.

Attend class. Class attendance also is an important part of the test prepara-tion process. Class attendance provides exposure to the tested material, with

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


instructors often providing important structure that can facilitate understand-ing. Class attendance permits discussion of material with classmates andprovides opportunities to ask instructors questions, including what should beemphasized in preparation for an exam. Students reduce the amount that needsto be learned anew just before an exam when they keep up on readings, takenotes in class, and integrate class notes with content covered in readings.

Manage test preparation time. Students do not have enough time toprepare fully for all tests. Thus, they manage time carefully. Some aremore structured in doing so than others (e.g., designating particular timesthrough the week for preparation for a particular exam versus studyingwhenever they have time).

Studying competes with other activities, including interactions with familyand friends as well as work-related and extracurricular activities. Some stu-dents decrease these activities when they need additional study time, althoughnot all did, indicating that their other responsibilities were more important tothem than test preparation. The closer the test, however, the more likely astudent focuses on test preparation to the exclusion of other activities andcommitments.

Preparation time for any particular test depends on whether the test wasscheduled closely in time to other exams or assignment due dates. Somestudents are adept at juggling assignments in order to increase study time forparticular exams. Some distribute study time by dividing test preparation intoa series of subgoals (e.g., completion of particular chunks of content), with testpreparation viewed as accomplishing the subgoals in order to make progress intest preparation. Some students study between classes and even as they walkto school (e.g., using flashcards). Such study was reported as less intensethan other study. Students claimed it to be more effective if used in conjunc-tion with periods of intensive study.

Students were cognizant that beginning early to prepare for an exam wasmore effective than waiting until shortly before an exam, knowing that cram-ming aids only rote memorization and results in learning that is quicklyforgotten. Students understand that distributed study time is superior to massedstudy time. Nonetheless, students vary in when they begin to study for a test.At the one extreme were students who began preparing with the first meetingof the class, organizing themselves, seeking out additional information, rewrit-ing notes, and so on. At the other end of the test preparation continuum,many students reported procrastination—thinking about beginning to studywell before an exam, but putting off actual study until the night before. Theycrammed. Some students reported that even though they sometimes distributedstudy, other times they crammed.

Use strategies to process material. Students reported a variety of strategiesfor processing material they had read previously and notes they had takenpreviously in preparation for an exam. Some students reported using different

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


strategies as a function of subject area. Others claimed that their processingstrategies were similar across the various subjects they were studying.

Knowing the format of the upcoming exam is critical in determining studystrategies. For example, when students expected factually oriented multiple-choice, matching, or true–false questions, they reported greater reliance onlow-level memorization strategies. In contrast, students reported organizingmaterial in preparation for essay and short-answer tests, exams requiringintegration and elaboration of material. In making this point, that some stu-dents reported different strategies as a function of type of test, it must beemphasized that there were other students who reported that they used thesame study strategies regardless of the test format that they expected.

The strategies students reported included the following:

• Rereading assignments and notes.• Rewriting lecture notes.• Integrating notes from readings with class notes.• Highlighting and memorizing key concepts, definitions, and formulae.• Making flash cards for drill of important information. (Many students, however,

seemed to be aware of the limited gains of such rote strategies, recognizing that suchdrilling does not lead to real understanding of material.)

• Making up rhymes, acronyms, songs, stories, and images to connect important ideasand remember the connections.

• Posing questions about the material.• Relating information to prior knowledge in order to personalize understanding of it.• Developing outlines, tables, figures, and graphs of important information.• Reading related material.• Studying old exams.• Seeking help, from textbooks and library sources to computer data bases and mass

media to peers, classmates, and instructors.• Creating an overarching conceptual structure integrating ideas in text and lectures.

(Even so, students recognized that they often did not engage in such integrationbecause of the effort involved.)

Reduce distractions when studying. Some students reported making effortsto reduce distractions in the study environment. These included locking them-selves in their rooms, taking the phone off the hook, and stopping noisyclocks. Some also reported attempting to reduce psychological distractions,for example, resolving minicrises in their lives before sitting down to study.

Prepare in study groups. Study groups can be helpful according to thestudents, especially if group members (including themselves) are well pre-pared. Prior study maximizes the likelihood of the group providing clarifica-tions of a student’s misconceptions and expansion on the student’s understand-ings. Students resented sharing their ideas and hard work with group memberswho were ill prepared. The value of a group also depended on its organization,with a group leader sometimes providing needed structure. In the absence ofsuch structure, students reported that groups are often noisy, incoherent meet-

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


ings. Students reported that self-selected groups, rather than instructor-as-signed groups, were more effective, permitting a student to link up withfriends or ‘‘smart’’ kids.

There are other perceived benefits of group study. The individual studyingalone runs a greater risk of studying the wrong material or coming to miscon-ceptions about the content than does a student studying in a group. Thestudent studying alone also is at greater risk for either understudying oroverstudying, since the group provides feedback about test readiness. Groupscan be helpful for courses involving a great deal of memory, with groupmembers testing one another.

Cheating. Many students reported that they cheated in preparation for andduring tests. The reasons varied, from wanting to maintain a high grade pointaverage at any cost to not wanting to put in the effort to prepare for an exam.Others viewed academic success as doing well on exams, no matter howthat was accomplished. Some justified cheating because of the perceivedirrelevance of the material they were studying. Others simply believed thatthere was so much material that they would have no chance unless theycheated.

Cheating was reported to occur in a number of ways:

• An advantage of joining a fraternity or sorority is access to old exams, which isespecially helpful for professors who repeat questions.

• Access to examination questions can sometimes be obtained from a secretary’s deskor through access to the secretary’s computer.

• Potential answers can be written on sneakers, desks, hands, cheat sheets, and so on.• When an instructor leaves a room during an exam, students can exchange answers,

talk with one another about answers, look through notes and textbooks, and mayeven look through papers on the instructor’s desk.

• During take-home exams, some students ask others for answers. Students reportedthat sometimes students would work together, with students dividing the questionsamong themselves.

Affect About Test Preparation

The students believed that mood matters greatly with respect to test prepara-tion. A good mood can facilitate study or result in distraction—it can permitgreat concentration or result in many thoughts about the source of happiness.A bad mood was perceived by the students as almost always having a negativeeffect on study, for example, by increasing distracting negative thoughts.

The students reported really disliking some types of tests, like pop quizzes,although they believed that surprise quizzes force students to be prepared andto know material well. Students disdain tests that they perceive to underesti-mate their competence (e.g., tests not representing well the material that wasto be tested).

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


External Factors Affecting Test Preparation

The students indicated that many aspects of their worlds make a differencewith respect to test preparation.

Instructors. Instructors can make the test preparation process easier bydoing the following:

• They can provide plenty of advance warning about exactly when exams will occurand assignments will be due.

• By being prepared (e.g., materials needed for a presentation are ready), instructorscan be clear and coherent in their presentations, giving presentations that are neithertoo general nor too detailed. Well-prepared presentations include examples and analo-gies that make the content understandable.

• They can discuss readings and assignments in class, making clear how assignmentsrelate to course goals.

• They can identify the content that should be emphasized during study and makeimportant connections between different concepts and details presented in the course.

• There is productive interaction between students and the teacher in class. The goodinstructor asks pertinent questions. If students falter in responding, the instructorprovides scaffolding in the form of hints or more specific questions. Good instructorsalso field student questions. The instructor seeks to improve student understandingthrough responses to student questions, rather than implying in responses that studentsare deficient in their understanding.

• All interactions with supportive instructors are friendly and respectful of students,treating all students fairly, never playing favorites.

• In general, good instructors emphasize improvement and effort by each student ratherthan competition between students. Students reported that it helped if the professorsent the message that, ‘‘You will do fine if you exert a little more effort.’’

• Good instructors are available for consultation outside of class.• They can provide old tests, indicating the format, content coverage emphasis, and the

required depth and length of good answers to test questions. Such information was citedas critical for knowing how to study for upcoming tests. The students reported that thereis much variability between professors with respect to the types of examinations used,but there was also great variability within professors as well. Thus, the professor whois helpful to students in preparing for exams is providing information throughout thecourse.

• They do not provide the exact exams used previously. Provision of exact questionsresults in students memorizing answers to the forthcoming test.

• They only test on material that has been covered or assigned.• Often they will provide helpful notes pertaining to especially critical content.• They provide adequate time to take tests, and students are aware of this, with the

result being reduced anxiety.

Students reported one uncontrollable instructor characteristic that they feelgreatly affects examination preparation and performance. When an instructorhas a strong foreign accent, much more effort must be expended in class tounderstand what the instructor is saying, reducing the amount of attentionavailable to process the messages the instructor intends and thus, missingimportant information. Accents also interfere with notetaking.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


Examination experiences. Tests provide important feedback to students, forexample, about misconceptions that require additional study. Students perceivedthat this feedback function is undermined if test results were much delayed.Effective instructors provide feedback that includes information about methodsor strategies to improve comprehension and future test preparation. Feedback,such as ‘‘good work’’ or ‘‘in need of improvement’’ is not very helpful, sinceit does not inform students about how to improve test performance.

Tests early in the term provide information about future exams and howthe exams should be approached, informing students about test format, contentcovered on tests, and the grading of test responses (e.g., degree of detail andelaboration expected by the professor).

Social environment. Peers and family can be supportive or distracting. Ifpeers and family members encourage academic engagement (or even if theyput pressure on for academic engagement), students reported being morelikely to be highly engaged (e.g., peers encouraging a student to ‘‘let’s gostudy’’ or parents sending the message that ‘‘we know that you will try anddo great’’). Friends can undermine motivation by encouraging partying ratherthan studying. Family members can undermine motivation as well, for exam-ple, by sending the message that they doubt the student’s competence. In short,students indicated many social distractions, especially in their dormitories.

Physical study environment. In general, a physically comfortable environ-ment is associated with longer and more intense study according to the partici-pants in this study. A number of features of the study environment affectability to study for exams. Students need adequate space to spread out materi-als being studied, citing library carrels as too small for such study. Beingable to spread out materials assists integration across sources of information.Three other important dimensions contribute to the comfortableness of a studyenvironment: noisiness, temperature, and lighting. Just as dormitories werecited as offering too many social distractions, students indicated that dormitor-ies offered little in the way of appropriate physical comfort for study. Therewas much in the student comments consistent with the idea that it is challeng-ing for many students to find a good place to study.

Some students indicated that studying in the same environment consistentlyresulted in habituation to distractions in the environment. That is, each newstudy environment has its own set of distractors which take some time tobecome accustomed to.

Finally, being too comfortable can reduce study. For example, studentsoften fall asleep when studying in bed.

Characteristics of to-be-studied content. Students claimed that a variety ofmaterial characteristics affect their study of to-be-examined content:

• Students read and study more for tests in their major. Alternatively, some studentsclaimed equal study for major and nonmajor courses, believing it necessary to dowell in school overall.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


• Students studied more when they felt the material being covered would be importantin future courses or in their job after graduation.

• High prior knowledge related to to-be-learned material reduces the amount of timerequired to prepare for a test, it also increases understanding and confidence fordoing well.

• Many students reported dedicating more time to material they find interesting. Inter-esting material was perceived as better learned because of increased incentive tobegin reading and to prepare for tests (i.e., permitting distributed practice). It is easierto remain on task when studying interesting material. Boring material is more likelyto be skimmed.

• Difficulty of material affects total reading and study time. Although students reportedthat easy reading was done quickly and that they studied relatively little for tests oneasy material, students did not report a necessarily linear relationship between easeof material and reading and study times. For example, easy, but interesting readingmight result in extended study. Also, extremely difficult material may receive rela-tively little reading or study time because students believe that the material couldnot be understood or learned no matter how much time was available or becausestudents recognize that the time required to understand or master the difficult contentwould reduce time spent on other commitments (e.g., other exams). Students reportedgreater motivation to study for material of medium difficulty than for either easy orvery difficult material, expecting that reading and study efforts directed at the me-dium-difficulty material would more certainly pay off without taking too great a tollon their other commitments. One of the characteristics of medium-difficulty materialis that it is possible to construct understanding as reading and studying proceeds—that initially unclear points become clearer with additional reading or studying.

• The amount of material to be covered on a test, independent of the difficulty levelof the material, affects study time. The amount of study time was reported as varyingwith the amount of material to be tested, although the amount can be so overwhelmingthat a student gives up.

• Disorganized material can be much harder to learn, requiring at a minimum thatstudents devote great effort initially to organizing the material. Some of the organiz-ing, however, results in deeper understanding of the material.

DISCUSSION

That much of what the students reported here is consistent with other, morebehavioral, data on studying and learning bolsters confidence in the students’perceptions. For example, just as others have observed that examinationsand grades are the preeminent motivators for many college students (e.g.,Abouserie, 1994; Michael, 1991; Zitzow, 1984), the students in this studymade clear that examinations and grades are a salient motivation for them.The students in this study also recognized the motivational power of instruc-tors who encourage improvement versus emphasizing competition (e.g.,Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1989). The students were extremely aware that thetypes of supports described by Thomas, Rohwer, and their colleagues—suchas information about how to study for an examination, clear presentations,and clarifications—facilitate studying and learning, whereas compensations,such as the exact questions that would be on the test, undermine studying

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


and learning (Thomas et al., 1993; Thomas & Rohwer, 1987, 1993). Thestudents in this study also indicated how critical it is for them to knowthe format of an upcoming examination, consistent with demonstrations thatknowledge of exam format shapes study and affects performance (Lunde-berg & Fox, 1991). The students in this study understood the advantage ofdistributing their study efforts (Dempster, 1988). The students’ claims aboutcooperative learning were consistent with what is known about the groupdynamics of cooperative learning (De Cooke, 1992; Karau & Williams, 1993).

Just as striking was that the students made no salient claims that clashedwith specific previous conclusions about student learning. Even so, the stu-dents portrayed self-regulated preparation for exams as more complicatedthan any previous conception of examination preparation that we know of.

Students believe that effective exam preparation involves a coordination ofefforts, including keeping up with readings, attending lectures, using learningstrategies (e.g., reviewing, reorganizing, and memorizing material), spacingstudying (both within and between courses), and preparing for and participat-ing in study groups. The students perceived many hazards along the way thatcan potentially derail the best of intentions, including inconsiderate professors,friends and family who make competing demands on time or undermineconfidence, and lack of access to a comfortable study environment. Thestudents’ perspective seems to be that their self-regulated studying dependson a great deal of situational support.

The findings reported here complement the results of Van Meter et al.(1994), who concluded that the self-regulated use of even a single studystrategy, notetaking, was determined by a number of factors in interaction,although not nearly as many variables as were identified by the participantsin this study as critical in the determination of studying for exams. As in thisstudy, there were multiple ways that the notetaking data were consistent withwell-established conclusions in the research literature. The grounded theorymethodology is permitting great headway in mapping out college students’understandings of their academic worlds.

By understanding more completely just what it is that students can believeabout their study for exams, we are in a better position to study linkagesbetween beliefs about studying, actual studying, and achievement: At a mini-mum, the student reports suggest many hypotheses about the linkages, onesthat are sensible in light of important contemporary theories. From the per-spective of metacognitive theory (Nelson, 1993), linkages between beliefsabout studying, studying, and achievement are to be expected. According tometacognitive theory, beliefs about cognition go far in regulating cognitionand ultimately performance. Linkages between beliefs, studying, and achieve-ment also make sense from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Ac-cording to social cognitive theory, beliefs about self are critical in determiningcognitive efforts and achievement (e.g., Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). What

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


is required now is the development of quantitative instruments that tap differ-ences in the beliefs catalogued here, with the individual differences identifiedwith such instruments related to differences in studying and academic out-comes. What this study did was to generate a catalog of possibilities byaggregating beliefs over students; what is required now is work that highlightsstudent differences in the beliefs catalogued and how those differences relateto studying and achievement.

REFERENCES

Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self esteemin university students. Educational Psychology, 14, 323–330.

Ames, C. A. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 261–271.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading.In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Bartling, C. A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in the study habits of successful college students.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 527–535.Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E. A., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated strategy

use: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones (Ed.),Dimensions of thinking: Review of research (pp. 53–92). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., & Perfetto,J. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 111, 390–398.

De Cooke, P. A. (1992). Children’s understanding of indebtedness as a feature of reciprocal helpexchanges between peers. Developmental Psychology, 28, 948–954.

Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results ofpsychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627–634.

Diaper, D. (Ed.) (1989). Knowledge elicitation: Principles, techniques, and applications. NewYork: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Entwistle, N. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In J. T. E. Richardson, M. W.Eysenck, & D. W. Piper (Eds.), Student learning: Research in education and cognitivepsychology (pp. 3–12). Milton Keynes, England: Open Univ. Press.

Entwistle, N. (1990). Student learning and classroom environment. In N. Jones & N. Frederickson(Eds.), Refocusing educational psychology (pp. 8–30). London, England: Falmer Press.

Ferguson-Hessler, M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study pro-cesses between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54.

Flavell, J. R., Miller, P., Miller, S. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1984). Cognition, metacognition, and reading. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Goldhaber, D. (in preparation). Why we are: Theoretical perspectives on human development.Greeno, J. G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44, 134–141.Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educa-

tional Research, 60, 549–571.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoreticalintegration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. (1975). An interview study of children’s knowledgeabout memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40 (1, SerialNo. 159).

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press.Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). Do laboratory findings on test expectancy generalize

to classroom outcomes? Review of Educational Research, 61, 94–106.Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and aca-

demic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35–42.Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instruc-

tional Science, 10, 177–200.Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entiwistle, N. (Eds.) (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh,

Scotland: Scottish Acad. Press.Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I. Outcome and process.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.McKeachie, W. J. (1961). Motivation, teaching methods, and college learning. In M. R. Jones

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 111–142). Lincoln, NE: Univ. of NebraskaPress.

McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and univer-sity teachers. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Meyer, M., & Booker, J. (1991). Eliciting and analyzing expert judgement: A practical guide.London: Academic Press.

Michael, J. (1991). A behavioral perspective on college teaching. Behavior Analyst, 14, 229–239.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Murray, B. (1996). Are professors turning a blind eye to cheating? APA Monitor, 27(1), 1, 42.Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two ‘‘quick and easy’’ methods of assessing individual

differences in student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299–312.Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. Press.Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental

processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Pauk, W. (1984). How to study in college (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton–Mifflin.Pepper, S. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively

responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it

is and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research,13, 857–867.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouragingmindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitateslearning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–110.

Ramsden, P. (1987). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In R. R. Schmeck(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 159–184). New York: Plenum.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, England: Routledge.Richardson, J. T., Eysenck, M. W., & Piper, D. W. (Eds.) (1987). Student learning: Research in

education and cognitive psychology. Milton Keynes, England: Open Univ. Press.Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1984). An invitation to a developmental psychology of studying. In F. J.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP


Morrison, C. A. Lord, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), Advances in applied developmental psychol-ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 1–57). New York: Academic Press.

Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum.Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (in press). Memory development between 2 and 20 (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance. Hills-

dale, NJ: Erlbaum.Scott, A. C., Clayton, J. E., & Gibson, E. L. (1991). A practical guide to knowledge acquisition.

Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Thomas, J. W., Bo, L., Warkentin, R. W., Wilson, M., Strage, A., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1993).

Interrelationships among students’ study activities, self-concept of academic ability, andachievement as a function of characteristics of high-school biology courses. Applied Cogni-tive Psychology, 7, 499–532.

Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences inacademic studying. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 344–364.

Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1993). Proficient autonomous learning: problems andprospects. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 1–32).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1991). Students’ critiques as motivation. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 347–368.

Turner, G. Y. (1992). College students’ self-awareness of study behaviors. College Student Jour-nal, 26, 129–134.

Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of notetaking derivedfrom their perceptions of notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview forassessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational ResearchJournal, 23, 614–628.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model ofstudent self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 82, 51–59.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-ment (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Zitzow, D. (1984). The college adjustment rating scale. Journal of College Student Personnel,25, 160–164.

ab05$$0933 03-18-97 22:45:40 cepa AP: CEP

Documents

College Students’ Beliefs about Exam Preparation