Bigger may not be better when it comes to study groups, says recent research conducted by associate professor of education Keith Sawyer. His recent study uncovered key reasons, ranging from notebook use to group size, that determined the effectiveness of study groups.

His findings revealed that “when everyone was looking down, the talk was more artificial, whereas when everyone was looking up, the talk was more conversational, and it was this alternation that made it really effective learning.”

When the students “looked up and started talking, they were rephrasing the material in their own words and making the material their own, which allows for a better retention rate,” Sawyer explained.

A student in Sawyer’s conversational analysis class videotaped a psychology study group that met the weekend before every exam to review their lecture notes. Sawyer and his student analyzed 12 minutes of the tape, using “special techniques of conversation analysis to identify how interaction patterns were different,” he said.

Sawyer particularly noticed that, “the notebook played a really critical role in the learning effectiveness of the study group,” because the students “looked down to see what the professor had said, paraphrased the comments, then looked up and starting talking about it.”

The number of students is a crucial aspect to consider when forming a study group.

“What makes [study groups] effective is that when you’re looking up, the interaction is more conversational,” said Sawyer. “Once groups get larger, it’s hard to have a normal conversation.”

Sawyer felt that groups of three and four students are ideal. Groups of five might be pushing it, and “six is definitely too big, unless you’re really good friends and have smooth interactions,” said Sawyer.

Although Sawyer’s research project only focuses on a psychology study group, his “inclination is to say that [study groups] are good for every subject,” even though he, “would expect patterns of conversation to be different.”

Whether studying biology or English, there’s always a benefit when working through ideas with other peers.

For a course that only requires papers and no exams, Sawyer suggested that the student should, “group with someone else to talk about the paper topic and explain what the paper will be about verbally, or have a fellow student read a draft of the paper.”

In general, it is “the act of being forced to verbalize that makes the group study an effective technique,” said Sawyer.

Harvey Fields, Jr., the assistant director of Cornerstone, was intrigued by Sawyer’s research. “Study groups,” he felt, “are only effective when students learn how to work in a study group.”

“Study groups are not useful if students go around, give each other the answer they got to a problem, and move on if everybody got the same answer,” said Fields. “Students must describe how they got the answer so that they will learn from the processes used by their peers.”

“[Study groups are valuable if] they are interactive, hands-on, meet regularly, and if everyone is involved,” added Fields.

Cornerstone provides two types of study groups: ones linked to specific courses-Peer Led Team Learning-and groups not directly connected to a course but facilitated by academic mentors.

“Students in PLTL study groups perform from one third of a grade to a full grade better,” reported Fields. He has no doubt that this is an accurate statistic. “No matter how [they] slice it, the average difference is the same. It’s real, it’s significant.” he said.

Given this knowledge, Cornerstone is continuing its efforts to promote study groups. As Fields pointed out, “[students] need to work in groups to maximize their potential.”

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, September 26th, 2005 at 12:00 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.