Practice Strategies For Psychology Students - Implications For Exam Performance - Book Report/Review Example

? Psychology Research Article Review Paper Submitted by: Article Reviewed: Practice Strategies for Psychology Implications for Exam Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Affect By Donna Webster Nelson and Stephanie Davenport The Review Introduction The question of examination performance is consistently an area of interest in psychology, due to the pervasiveness of examinations in society. At almost every educational level, students are required to prove their learning of knowledge, skills and competencies through this testing method. In a 2011 paper, Donna Webster Nelson and Stephanie Davenport published the results of a study they conducted in this area of research, titled “Practice Strategies for Psychology Students: implications for Exam Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Affect”. The specific question of preparation for examinations by using practice items, and their effectiveness as well as their effect on students, was their general focus. Their findings and conclusions, communicated in the above-mentioned article in Psychology Journal, Vol. 8, No.3, reveal some new information about how students learn, of benefit especially to teachers at College level, and aiming to assist students in their preparation for examinations. The researchers set out with the intention to compare the consequences of adopting differing approaches in preparing students for examinations. Students in an introductory psychology class were to be the experimental subjects. For this purpose, three different approaches to reviewing practice items were implemented: controlled and directed by the instructor; paper-and-pencil completion of practice test items; and an online completion of practice questions (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 102). The hypothesis presented in the paper is that favorable student outcomes should be observed from the students completing Computer Assisted (CA) preparation, when compared to paper-and-pencil preparation, and that ultimately, the most favorable outcomes should result from the interaction between student and instructor (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 104). Existing research is referred to in this paper to support the researchers in their predictions of the outcome of their study. The work of writers such as Sarason (1984) and Swanson & Howell (1996) is cited to show that test anxiety has a directly negative effect on performance in examinations and that high-test anxiety levels compromise even the study habits of students (Roghblum, Solomon & Murakami, 1996, in Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 102). Furthermore, the importance of the involvement of faculty in the process of reviewing and practicing for examinations has been shown. Webster Nelson and Davenport (2011, at p. 102) cite writers such as Marek, Griggs, and Christopher (1999) in support of their contention that both the involvement of an instructor and the type of examination practice implemented play a vital role in determining student examination success. Thus the hypothesis presented by the researchers is well-grounded in research, and can be outlined as follows: students do benefit from practice tests; online sources for practice items could sometimes be more favorably viewed by students than paper-and pencil methods, but may not always result in improved examination performance; students who use practice exercises do value “feedback as a learning tool” (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 103); and those students do better in examinations because of a more complete knowledge of the material. The Methodology and Findings Experimental conditions, therefore, employed in this study were planned around these basic premises: a traditional paper-and pencil method of practice examinations; practice tests using computers and the Internet; and instructor-managed revision of material. Furthermore, the researchers aimed to evaluate participants’ “affect, self-efficacy, test anxiety, and actual performance” (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 104). An introductory psychology class at a Southeast University was approached to participate, and the volunteers received a small course credit for their participation. Twenty-four male and forty female students took part in the study. For the experiment, students were randomly allocated to groups according to the experimental conditions described in the preceding paragraph. Thus, one group worked independently on a paper-and-pencil preparation test; a second on an online quiz, also independently, and a third the same practice test was presented to the class by an instructor. In all three instances, feedback was provided, and it was designed to have the same content as to correctness and incorrectness of answers and responses. In order to test the hypothesis of the experiment, dependent variables were tested in a series of planned comparisons (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 105). Positive and negative affect were measured by students’ responses to a set of self-report questions, regarding their feelings after completing the respective practice exercises, with ratings on a 5-point Likert scale. Positive affect measured higher in the instructor-led group, and negative affect lower in this group, than for either of the other groups (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 105-6). The researchers adapted nine items from the Test Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1980, cited in Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 105) to assess test anxiety in the participants. It was found that again the instructor-led students fared best, reflecting the lowest levels of test anxiety. In this measurement, the students completing the paper-and-pencil experiment communicated the most test anxiety. Similarly, the measurement of self-efficacy was assessed through a 4-item series, and it was found that the instructor-led group experienced a greater sense of being prepared for the examination, the online-group a lesser sense, and the paper-and-pencil group felt least self-assured about their potential examination performance (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, pp. 105 and 106). Again, a similar pattern emerged in the measurement of student assessment of the usefulness of the preparation sessions, with one difference: no significant variation was measured between students’ perceptions of the online session and the instructor-led session – both groups believed the sessions had been useful. To measure performance, the scores for the mid-term examination written one week later were matched to the code numbers assigned to the students who participated in the experiment (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 105). Differences close to significance could be measured between the online group, and the instructor-led group, with the latter showing higher achievement, while no significant difference could be found between the online and paper-and-pencil groups (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 106). The Discussion of Results It is evident according to the researchers that the methods employed to do review work before and examination have notable effects on the students’ grades and performance in examinations. They report “distinct advantages” (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 106) for students receiving a teacher-initiated process of review, where the instructor and the student discuss practice items face-to-face. Not only are the students’ examination results better than if they review in contexts where they do not interact with an instructor, there is also likely to be a greater sense of preparedness and confidence. Fewer negative emotions associated with examinations are also experienced. In terms of the emotional experiences of students, the difference between online, or computer-based preparation for examinations, and paper-and-pencil preparation is marked – students prefer the online methods, and experience more positive personal outcomes. However, there is not a significant difference according to this study, in students’ examination achievement between the above-mentioned methods of practice. Nonetheless, the positive aspects of instructor-led preparation are made clear, and the positive impact of online methods, because of the students’ reported preference, is shown in this experimental study. Conclusion The study, “Practice Strategies for Psychology Students: implications for Exam Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Affect” examines an area of psychology which is certainly relevant within education circles. The general need to find ways to ensure effective and successful methods for students to prepare for examinations is recognized (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 102) not only at college or university level, but also within schooling. In light of this, the experimental study reviewed here is valuable within this framework. The design of the experiment conducted by Webster Nelson and Davenport is effective to reveal findings that may reflect a generally concluded idea that an instructor aiding students, and interacting with students while reviewing examination practice tests, has beneficial results for the students. This conclusion is further strengthened by this research insofar as it applies to psychology students, in an introductory phase, at a university. As noted by the researchers, however, a wider focus for future research is called for. Larger cohorts of students may reveal more variable and measurable results – for example the statistical significance between examinations results of paper-and-pencil preparation, and online preparation, is not significant in this study (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 105). This is in light of the clear preference students have for the online method, and further study must be conducted to determine whether this student preference actually does improve grades, or whether it is positive only for affective outcomes. Such results may also apply directly only to psychology students at the same level of education as the study sample. A group of mathematics, or literature, or engineering students may, by way of example, reveal far different outcomes, both in terms of preferred methods of preparation for testing, and in terms of effect on their performance. Thus, a wider-focused study is required, if the results are considered to be universally applicable to university students. Likewise, different groups of learners – by age, gender, social background, or culture – may deliver significantly varying experimental results. If such conclusions are, again, to be generalized for wide educational use, more studies using various sample groups will have to be carried out. These conclusions could then be applicable to secondary, college and university systems, across academic disciplines. In the design of this experiment’s conditions, the three selected conditions were appropriate. Some possible improvement could be noted. If an instructor-led context is created for both paper-and-pencil, and online revision, respectively, some differentiation may be able to be concluded between these methods. The researchers do not indicate that the students in the instructor-led condition were predominantly using computers, or paper-and-pencil. These should be separated, or clearly formulated – a fourth and fifth condition for the experiment are perhaps suggested, with instructor-led and independent groups working on, respectively, each of the available formats. Control groups – one with paper-and-pencil; one with computer assistance – without instructors present, should provide a clearer and perhaps significant measurement of differing outcomes, particularly related to examination performance. It can also be proposed that the researchers did not account for some bias. The incentive provided for the students – extra course credits – may have influenced the volunteers, in that they participated without particular interest in completing questionnaires and assessment items with concentration, or seriousness. It is not noted in the research whether informed consent was given by the students, or whether an ethics committee, or similar body, approved the research. While the research was not necessarily invasive, it seems that the experiment did change the students’ performance in an examination, depending on which condition they had been randomly assigned. This seems to be a fairly serious consequence, given the researchers’ own admission that the academic environment is a competitive one (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 102). The study and its findings, therefore, do suggest areas in which future research will need to be conducted, and points toward areas in the design of the study that could be more focused. The impact of the results of the study on instructors, and teachers, can be positive. It seems that in light of the research presented in the study, and in light of these specific results, that the benefits of having face-to-face interaction between students and instructors are clear. While this may suggest that such examination practice should be universally applied, it also raises the question of cost. Instructors will need to be paid if they do present revision classes in addition to a normal teaching program. This implication is acknowledged by the researchers (Webster Nelson & Davenport, 2011, p. 106). Webster Nelson and Davenport have with their study contributed a valuable step forward in the research dealing with effective methods to assist learners to prepare for examinations effectively. Reference Webster Nelson, D. & Davenport, S. (2011) Practice Strategies for Psychology Students: Implications for Exam Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Affect Psychology Journal, 2011, Vol. 8, No. 3 pp. 102-109 ISSN: 1931-5694 Read More