1. Student Exam Preparation in an Introductory Soils Class Clay A. Robinson West Texas A&M University

2. Background  Barbarick and Ippolito (2003) reported an exponential rise to maximum model predicted student exam scores relative to hours studied in introductory soils courses at Colorado State University and Front Range Community College  They further noted that 68% of students could achieve a 90% exam score by studying from 1.5 to 1.9 h h -1 lecture, which was less than the Carnegie Rule of 2 h h -1 of class time

3. Background  Savelyeva, et al. (2004) examined several components of student schedules and activities to identify whether these factors or gender influenced student grades  They found differences in male-female activities and study habits that might contribute to the higher grades attained by females at Kansas State Univ. and Virginia Tech

4. Rationale  In discussions with students, I got the impression that study time might not affect grades of students in my classes.  Students are sophomores to seniors from several majors: Agricultural business and economics, animal science, plant and soil science, integrated pest management, wildlife biology, and environmental science

5. Objectives  In order to assist students in preparing for exams, I wanted to identify which student habits were predictive of success on exams in my introductory soils course

6. Exam Characteristics  Bloom’s Taxonomy classification of exam questions Soil formation and classification: Soil formation and classification: Knowledge and comprehension, 45%Knowledge and comprehension, 45% Application and analysis, 55%Application and analysis, 55% Soil biology and chemistry: Soil biology and chemistry: Knowledge and comprehension, 50%Knowledge and comprehension, 50% Application and analysis, 50%Application and analysis, 50% Soil physical properties, water and erosion: Soil physical properties, water and erosion: Knowledge and comprehension, 45%Knowledge and comprehension, 45% Application and analysis, 55%Application and analysis, 55%

7. Methods  Exam preparation questionnaires were developed for the three 1-h exams given during the semester, asking students to self-identify their exam preparation behaviors: Class attendance, weekly study (h), cram study (h), total study (h), whether they had completed worksheets, had copies of old exams, used online resources provided, or participated in a study group

8. Methods  Surveys were given to students when graded exams were returned during five semesters of Soils, Spring 2003 through Spring 2005  Combined enrollment: 128 students  Total surveys completed: 331  Online resources listed on questionnaires were tailored to exam material

9. Analysis  Descriptive statistics by exam and semester  Correlation analysis  Stepwise regression analysis requiring p < 0.15 for entry and retention of each parameter in the model

10. Exam Results Exam Topic Semester n Form & Class Biol & Chem Phys Prop mean mean Sp03, 25 80.3 ± 13.7 68.6 ± 10.7 74.1 ± 12.5 74.6 ± 13.2 Fa03, 11 81.3 ± 10.7 64.4 ± 14.1 59.5 ± 9.7 68.7 ± 14.8 Sp04, 21 88.5 ± 13.8 64.2 ± 17.6 n/a 76.6 ± 19.9 Fa04, 27 77.2 ± 14.6 70.6 ± 13.7 72.9 ± 14.2 Sp05, 32 76.2 ± 13.6 n/a 60.4 ± 13.7 68.2 ± 15.7 mean mean 80.7 ± 14.3 67.3 ± 14.5 66.7 ± 14.2 72.6 ± 15.8

11. Results  Student performance varied by semester  Student performance by topic Students did the best on the Soil Formation and Classification exam, which has no math, little chemistry, and a lab devoted to understanding how to use soil taxonomy Students did the best on the Soil Formation and Classification exam, which has no math, little chemistry, and a lab devoted to understanding how to use soil taxonomy Performance on the other two sections was much poorer. These exams have a significant amount of problem solving involving math (basic algebra) and or chemistry and physics Performance on the other two sections was much poorer. These exams have a significant amount of problem solving involving math (basic algebra) and or chemistry and physics

12. Results

13. Results

14. Results

15. Results

16. Correlations  Weak correlations (0.2 < r < 0.3) existed between semester and the amount of time students studied, or whether they had copies of old exams, or worked in study groups, or used online resources provided  Study time, use of online resources, and work in study groups had very weak correlations (0.1 < r < 0.2) with scores  Correlations existed between time and activities that consumed time, e.g., using online resources, etc.

17. Regression Analysis  Stepwise regression was done in two phases  The first phase considered semester, topic, and all study methods.  Five variables met the criteria (p < 0.15) for entry and retention in the model: Topic, total time, online resource utilization, participation in a study group, and semester. However, the partial r 2 for each parameter was less than 0.04, and the model r 2 was 0.10.

18. Regression Analysis  The second phase omitted semester and topic from the analysis to examine only student study traits.  Only two variables met the criteria (p < 0.15) for entry and retention in the model: Online resource utilization and participation in a study group. However, the partial r 2 for each parameter was less than 0.02, and the model r 2 was 0.04.

19. Summary  My suspicion that hours spent studying did not have a strong effect on exam scores was confirmed. (I would not want my students to hear that I said, “Studying will not help you.”)  Maybe my courses are just an anomaly, (Such things have been uttered about me in the past.) or …

20. Summary  It could be that the emphasis of application and analysis questions on the exam alters the applicability of the time relation others have found. Understanding how to apply information requires time, but also more effort to grasp how to apply the concept - Memory is not enough.  Students were operating well short of the Carnegie Rule (20 to 24 h exam -1 ). Only 10% studied 10 h or more for each exam, and 50% spent less than 5 h exam -1.

21. Summary  So, I will encourage my students to Work in a study group – Others have noted the effectiveness of group learning and student mentors. Work in a study group – Others have noted the effectiveness of group learning and student mentors. Use the online resources available, which provide a different approach to the material. Use the online resources available, which provide a different approach to the material. Spend more time in reviewing the class material and in exam preparation (at least move toward the 1.5 to 1.9 h h -1 rule noted by Barbarick and Ippolito (2003). Spend more time in reviewing the class material and in exam preparation (at least move toward the 1.5 to 1.9 h h -1 rule noted by Barbarick and Ippolito (2003).

22. References  Barbarick, K.A., and J.A. Ippolito. 2003. Does the number of hours studied affect exam performance? J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Ed. 32:32-35.  Savelyeva, T., J.R. McKenna, D.J. Minihan, K.J. Donnelly. 2004. Factors influencing undergraduate male and female students’ academic performance in agricultural majors. Abstract 5233. ASA- CSSA-SSSA-CSSS Annual Meetings, Oct 31 – Nov 4, 2004. Seattle, WA.