Chelsea Kate Maravilla

Study Habits of College Students Revealed in New

Survey
By Caralee Adams on November 18, 2011 11:00 AM
Just how much are college students hitting the books these days? The 2011 annual
National Survey of Student Engagement found full-time students put in about
15 hours a week, on average.
It depends on your major, however, and how much your professor pushes you.
Engineering was more demanding, while business and social science majors had
lighter workloads.
The survey found faculty expectations for study time generally matched what
students reported, but professors in some fields wanted students to study more,
and students weren't always prepared for class even when they put in 20 hours.
With the challenge of paying for college today in the down economy, the survey
looked at the impact that financial stress had on students. Overall, 22 percent of
entering students expected paying for college would be "very difficult."
Of those students, about one-third expected to work more than 10 hours a week
and were first-generation college students. They also thought they'd have more
trouble learning course material, managing time, getting help with school work,
making friends, and interacting with faculty than students who didn't have financial
concerns, the survey found. Students with high financial need placed a higher value
on importance for campus support and help coping.
With these findings in mind and the current economic climate, the authors suggest
faculty, administration, and first-year programming staff offer services and outreach
to help improve student persistence for this population.
The survey also asked students about what strategies they used to learn in college.
While most said they took careful notes in class, nearly one-third never looked at
them again for review. About half outlined major topics and ideas from class as a
way to retain the material and half discussed effective study strategies with faculty
or other students.
What students said did work to keep them more engaged: academic challenge and
active, collaborative learning. This suggests that professors need to ramp up their
expectations, while also being proactive in teaching study skills so students really
learn, officials with NSSE note.
As seniors prepare for the job market, 83 percent are talking with advisers or
professors for work-related advice. Nearly half are participating in a clinical

assignment, internship, practicum, or field experience. Education majors (71

percent) were more likely to have this practical work experience, compared with 43
percent of business majors. This career-related information was provided by the
NSSE companion surveys, the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement
and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement.
The NSSE results are from a survey of 416,000 first-year students and seniors at
673 U.S. colleges and universities.

The study habits of college students

Ian Ward
To cite this article: Ian Ward (1972) The study habits of college students, The Vocational Aspect
of Education, 24:58, 101-104, DOI: 10.1080/03057877280000171

The Study Habits of College Students

By IAN WARD
School and Institute of Education, University of Liverpool
There are a number of books on the theme of 'How to Study': they contain what
appear to be commonsense recommendations relating to the place of study, to
quiet study, to the planning of a
work programme, to the taking of appropriate rest breaks and so on.
There have also been a number of investigations into study habits. Heaton and
Weedon used a 35-item test in their examination of study skills. Brown and
Holzmann included a 75-point questionnaire in their 'Survey of Study Habits and
Attitudes'. Gibbons and Savage used this latter questionnaire in their own
investigation. Of much greater value in this country is the study habits inventory
designed by MaUeson,
Penfold and Sawiris:
The Study Habits Inventory was based on a whole series of statements about study
methods and attitudes derived from personal interviews held with some 20 per cent
of the students at the outset of the investigation. About 90 such statements that
seemed to the interviewer (N.M.) to be descriptive and important were constructed.
They were divided more or less arbitrarily into two separate questionnaires, and a
number of direct negatives, with slightly different wordings, were incorporated so
that the two inventories would, to some degree, constitute a reliability check on one
another. This study habits inventory was answered by students on a 5-point scale of:
CT Clearly and definitely true
T Sometimes true-i.e, more true than false
? Cannot make up mind
U More untrue than true
CU Clearly and definitely untrue.

The authors were able to obtain a picture of the study habits of a group of medical
students. They were also able to factor analyze and to delineate the different sorts
of patterns or clusters of study habits and attitudes. However, they did not see their
study habits inventory as a fully developed new instrument, but as a first
approximation towards such an inventory. The Study Habits Inventory used in the
present investigation is a modification (with permission) of that developed by
Malleson, Penfold and Sawiris. Minor modifications to five of the questions brought
them from the context of a medical school into the context of a college of
education. In addition, the 5-point scale for answers were reduced to a 3-point scale
of True? False. Statistical procedures were based on the True/False dichotomy.
Students in the second term of their college course met as a group and the purpose
of the investigation was explained to them. Students were requested to complete
the Study Habits Inventory and were promised information based on the results
thereof. From the 325 returned inventories (out of a total of 362 students) two
groups were extracted. A group of 95 'better' students were those who gained a
mark of 'B' or better in Education (the only common course) at the end of their first
year. A group of 88 'weaker' students were those who obtained a mark 'C' or less on
the same course. The chi-squared test was applied and it was found in answers to
13 of the 50 questions the differences between the two groups were significant. In
the answers to a number of the questions both groups appeared to follow commonly
accepted 'good' study methods; for instance, both groups indicated to
approximately the same extent that they took short breaks during an evening of
study. It was felt that important areas of differences should be reported back to
students as a series of
implicit recommendations. Subsequently the following information was returned to
students.
'On the basis of these answers, it seems that better students are more likely than
weaker students to:

1. Study alone
2. Study without a radio/record player
on
3. Study longer
4. Attempt to maintain attention in
lectures
5. Prepare and keep to a timetable of
evening
study
6. Pay attention to detail in textbooks
7. Keep methodical notes

8. Allow adequate time for the

preparation of
written work, rather than rushing just
before it has to be handed in
9. Attempt to relate private study
reading to
lectures
10. Revise for examinations principally
from
hand-outs and notes rather than from
textbooks.

References
1. Guinery, M. (1967). How to Study,
London,
Allen and Unwin Ltd; Heaton, K. L. and
Weedon, V. (1940). The Failing
Student,
Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press;
James, E. E.
(1967). A Student's Guide to Efficient
Study,
London, Pergammon Press; Mace, C.
A. (1963).
The Psychology of Study, London,
Pelican;
Maddox, H. (1963). How to Study,
London,
Pan Books.
2. Heaton, K. L. and Weedon. V. ibid.
3. Brown and Holzmann (1953).
Survey of Study
Habits and Attitudes.

4. Gibons, R. C. and Savage, R. D.

(1965).
Intelligence, Study Habits and
Personality
Factors in Academic Success Durham
Research
Report, 16, pp. 8-12.
5. Malleson, N., Penfold, D. M. and
Sawiris, M. Y. (1968). 'Medical
Students' Study: The Way They Work',
Brit. J. Med. Educ. Vol. 2, pp. 11-19.
6. Ward, I. (1969). The Apportionment
of Time
by College Students, M.Ed., Univ. of
Birmi