SOAR versus SQ3R: A test of two study systems

Instructional Science

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 409-420

  Jairam, Dharma ^a   Kiewra, Kenneth A ^b   Rogers Kasson, Sarah ^b   Patterson Hazley, Melissa ^b   Marxhausen, Kim ^b  

^a BEHREND COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Learning strategies; SOAR; SQ3R

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897024603     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9295-0     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 27-55.
2. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1985). Studying strategies and their implication for textbook design. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing useable texts (pp. 159-177). Orlando: Academic Press.
3. Atkinson, R. K., Levin, J. R., Kiewra, K. A., Meyers, T., Kim, S. I., Atkinson, L. A., et al. (1999). Matrix and mnemonic text-processing adjuncts: Comparing and combining their components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 342-357.
4. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students' lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28-32.
5. Bausch, A., & Becker, K. (2001). A study of students' lack of study and organizational strategies with middle school and high school students. Master's thesis, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Masters Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455461). Retrieved from the ERIC database.
6. Biggs, J. B. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 127-138.
7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington: National Academy Press.
8. Butler, T. H. (1983). Effect of subject and training variables on the SQ3R study method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
9. Caverly, D. C. (1985, December). Textbook study strategies: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.
10. Cook, L., & Mayer, R. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressely & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 87-131). New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Mixed methods approaches. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
12. Crooks, S., White, D., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 369-391.
13. Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 261-303). New York: Academic Press.
14. Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (2000). Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707-721.
16. Glenny, A. M., Altman, D. G., Song, F., Sakarovitch, C., Deeks, J. J., D'Amico, R., et al. (2005). Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technology Assessment, 9, 1-4.
17. Gubbels, P. S. (1999). College student studying: A collected case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
18. Harp, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
19. Harwell, M. R. (1988). Univariate vs. multivariate tests: ANOVA versus MANOVA. Educational Research Quarterly, 12, 20-28.
20. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2009). An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 602-629.
21. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 601-614.
22. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborate studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.
23. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471-479.
24. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. (1999, April). Indexing, extraction, and localization effects from learning from matrices, outlines, and text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
25. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. (2010). What makes the matrix so effective: An empirical test of indexing, extraction, and localization effects. Instructional Science, 38, 679-705.
26. Kiewra, K. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 366-374.
27. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of note taking, review, and attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73-77.
28. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students' note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378-386.
29. Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science, 16, 233-249.
30. Kiewra, K. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
31. Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Helping students SOAR to success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
32. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303-323.
33. Larson, R., & Farber, B. (2012). Elementary statistics: Picturing the world. New York: Prentice Hall.
34. Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1995). Teaching children to be literate: A reflective approach. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.
35. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 371-383.
36. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
37. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The Promise of educational psychology Volume 2: Teaching for meaningful learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.
38. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the designing of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760-769.
39. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.
40. McCormick, S., & Cooper, J. Q. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled students' literal comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. Reading Psychology, 12, 239-271.
41. Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
42. Rachal, K. C., Daigle, S., & Rachal, W. S. (2007). Learning problems reported by college students: Are they using learning strategies? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 191-199.
43. Robinson, F. P. (1941). Effective study. New York: Harper & Row.
44. Robinson, F. P. (1962). Effective reading. New York: Harper & Row.
45. Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A., Beth, A., Odom, S., Ya-Ping, H., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 103-111.
46. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455-467.
47. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 2, 181-221.
48. Scappaticci, E. T. (1977). A study of SQ3R and select and recite reading and study skills methods in college classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, Bethlehem.
49. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
50. Spor, M., & Schneider, B. (1999). Content reading strategies: What teachers know, use, and want to learn. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 221-231.
51. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triachic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808-820.
53. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1552-1571.
54. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Harper & Row.
55. Tadlock, D. F. (1978). SQ3R: Why it works, based on information processing theory of learning. Journal of Reading, 22, 110-112.
56. Titsworth, S. (2004). Students' note taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305-320.