Accuracy in judgments of study time predicts academic success in an engineering course
- 108 Downloads
The present work examines the accuracy of self-reports of study time for college students. In a 10-week Mechanical Engineering course, 99 college students accessed their textbook, homework solutions, graded work, and lecture slides via custom software that recorded objective measures of reading time. In addition, the students provided subjective judgments of the time they spent reading these materials. Comparisons between the objective and subjective measures reveal that students significantly overestimated time with the textbook, homework solutions, graded work, and lecture slides, with higher performing students overestimating to a lesser degree. The difference between objective and subjective judgments of study time correlated significantly and negatively with final course grade for the textbook (r = −.31), homework solutions (r = −.39), and lecture slides (r = −.24), but not for graded work (r = −.05). This study calls into question the utility of self-report data in studies of student study habits, and showcases the value of objective technology-based measures of such habits.
KeywordsStudy strategies Evaluation methodologies Interactive learning environments Learning management systems
This project was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award Numbers 0935239, 1432820, and 1612511.
Compliance with ethical standards
The authors listed on this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.
- Azevedo, R., & Aleven, V. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.Google Scholar
- Cummings, K., French, T., & Cooney, P. J. (2002). Student textbook use in introductory physics. In Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2002. Boise: Idaho.Google Scholar
- van Gog, T. (2013). Time on task. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 432–433). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Masui, C., Broeckmans, J., Doumen, S., Groenen, A., & Molenberghs, G. (2014). Do diligent students perform better? Complex relations between student and course characteristics, study time, and academic performance in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.721350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (2016). Role of metacognition in STEM games and simulations. In H. F. O'Neil, E. L. Baker, & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Using games and simulations for reaching and assessment (pp. 183–205). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- National Survey of Student Engagement. (2016). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education—Annual results 2016. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
- Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgements. In J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 415–429). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–10.Google Scholar