Group Members: Afifa Zahid, Edward Acheampong, Shayne Gueits
Possible correlation between time spent studying and exam score received.
Abstract
Past studies have demonstrated a correlation between higher grades and the amount of time spent studying. However, this phenomenon has not been studied across different majors. More specifically, whether or not certain majors spend more time on average studying for exams, and if the increased study time improves grades on examinations To analyze study habits across different majors, a Google Form was sent to college students. The survey asked participants about their major, time spent studying for midterms, exam grades, and other pertinent questions. The results demonstrate that STEM students did spend more time studying on average compared to their non STEM peers. However, they did not receive higher grades. This discrepancy can be attributed to several different factors such as whether or not they receive financial assistance, the rigor of their courses, and study habits.
Introduction
An integral part of almost every college student’s academic career is their studying habits. Depending on how a student studies, their grades may rise and fall accordingly. With an abundance of study resources available, the student must find the best studying method for each class. A potential indicator of how successful their study habits are is their GPA. However, study habits are only one factor that contributes to a student’s overall grade, time management skills are also imperative. Studies have demonstrated a link between poor time management skills and poor grades. However, an increase in study time was effective in raising grades (Beattie, 2019). Beattle et al also described the importance of seeking support from peers and professors. Further, while Beattie et al demonstrated the correlation between study times and grades, the amount of time spent studying across different majors has yet to be explored. Due to the rigor associated with STEM courses, such as difficult exams and laboratory experiments, we hypothesized that STEM students started preparing for midterm examinations earlier than non STEM students. Further, if STEM students spend more time studying than their non STEM peers, they should receive higher grades on examinations.
Methods
An anonymous survey was created on the Google Forms platform and consisted of the following questions: what the student’s major was, if they take any STEM classes, if they received financial aid, whether they commuted to school or lived in the dorms, when they started studying for midterms, their grade on their last STEM exam, their grade on their last non STEM exam, who they studied with, how they studied, if they believed that their grade reflected their study habits, and if they would consider studying more or less. Out of the 11 questions, 8 were multiple-choice, 2 were checklists, and 1 was fill in the blank. Every question was mandatory except for 2 questions: the respondent’s grade on their last STEM and non STEM exam. These were not marked as mandatory because of the possibility that the respondent does not take those courses.
The survey was kept open for one week, from March 24, 2022, to March 31, 2022. To collect responses, it was posted on a discussion board that was accessible to the entire Writing for the Sciences course. Further, it was sent to other college students through group chats and other social media platforms such as GroupMe, Discord, and the default iMessage app. Access to the survey was not limited to a certain school, city, or class. The only criteria to take the survey was to be a college student.
Results
Primary Outcomes
Out of the 39 survey respondents, 16 participants (41%) reported studying 3 weeks before their midterms. Furthermore, 15 participants (38.5%) start studying 3 days before their exam, 6 participants (15.4%) start studying 1 day before the exam, and 2 respondents (5.1%) report not studying at all for midterms. The data demonstrate that participants who began studying one week in advance generally scored better on both STEM and non STEM exams compared to individuals who began studying 3 days before and 1 day before. However, we were unable to establish a correlation between the grade received by individuals who did not study for the exam. Further, 84.6% of participants, or 33 out of 39 respondents, stated they would consider studying more. Finally, 69.2% of individuals, 27 out of 39 participants, reported that they believe that their grade accurately reflects their study habits.
Secondary Outcomes
Looking over notes was the most common way of studying, 36 out of 39 participants (92.3%) reported using this method. The other most common methods of studying were watching Youtube videos (71.8%) and practice questions (56.45%). The least common studying tactics were rewriting notes and utilizing Google. Only 1 person (2.6%) reported using these methods. Finally, one respondent reported not studying at all.
Next, participants were asked if they study in a group setting. Approximately 92.3% of individuals, 36 out of 39 individuals, study alone. While studying in groups was the least common form of study, only 9 out of 36 participants (23.1%) reported utilizing this method. Finally, 10 individuals, (25.6%) studied with a partner.
Further, 24 respondents (61.5%) of individuals reported taking at least one STEM class. While 15 participants do not take any STEM classes. This is reflected in the distribution of majors. Biomedical sciences was the most common major. A total of 13 respondents reported having this major. Psychology and computer science were the second and third most common majors.
Additionally, respondents were asked if they commute to school or live in the dorms. Out of 39 respondents, 26 people (66.7%) commuted while the remaining 13 respondents (33.3%) reported living on campus. Finally, 51.3% of individuals, 20 out of 39, reported receiving full financial aid. Out of the remaining 19 responses, 12 participants (30.8%) received partial tuition and 7 individuals (17.9%) reported not receiving any financial aid.
Discussion
We hypothesized that people who took one or more STEM classes would study for longer amounts of time before an exam. The study demonstrates a correlation between the number of stem classes taken and the amount of time was used to study. Participants who took at least one STEM course this semester started studying for midterms one week before the exam on average. While participants who do not take any STEM courses were most likely to begin their studies 3 days before the exam.
Further, we expected that if an individual began preparing further in advance, 1 week before the exam, their grade on their exam would increase. The results do not align with this hypothesis. Even though STEM students started studying earlier, most respondents scored between 76 and 85% on their last STEM exam. In comparison, the majority of respondents scored between 86 and 95% on their last non-STEM exam. There are several potential reasons for this discrepancy. First, respondents may find their STEM courses significantly harder. This problem may be further exacerbated by the quality of their professor. If a student feels that they are not being adequately prepared for exams, they may find their STEM courses significantly more challenging.
Next, another factor that could impact how much time a student spends studying is whether or not they receive financial aid. For students to continue receiving financial aid, they must maintain a certain GPA and credit hours. This increased pressure may motivate a student to spend more time studying regardless of major. The study indicated that among the students surveyed, students who received full tuition studied longer before midterms. This indicates that students may be more eager to put more effort into their grades when there is a financial incentive.
Finally, the main limitation of this study was the quality of responses. It was assumed that every respondent would answer truthfully. The survey was anonymous to motivate respondents to answer truthfully, however, grades are personal. It is possible for one or more participants to not feel comfortable with sharing their actual grades and to not answer truthfully. The possibility for this to occur is quite likely. Out of the 39 responses received, we deemed that one response was a joke. The student indicated that their major was “farming” followed by an emoji. Their decorum caused us to postulate that their responses were not accurate. The possibility of this occurring was further increased because we increased our survey size significantly. Initially, our survey size was focused on our Writing for the Science class. However, we expanded it to college freshmen and sophomores. By sending the link we received responses from students outside of City College, such as Baruch College, Barnard College, Stanford University, and even outside of the country. One participant is currently a freshman at the University of Toronto.
A point for future research would be to analyze the most effective study strategy. One question in the survey asked individuals to indicate the methods they use to study. These options included looking over notes, watching YouTube videos, practice questions, and more. One of these methods may be more effective than the rest. Determining this would allow students to more efficiently use their study time and receive the grades they want.
References
Beattie, Graham, Jean-William P Laliberté, Catherine Michaud-Leclerc, and Philip Oreopoulos. “What Sets College Thrivers and Divers Apart? A Contrast in Study Habits, Attitudes, and Mental Health.” Economics letters 178 (2019): 50–53.
