Treffer: Design and Systematic Evaluation of the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training Program.
Weitere Informationen
Developed and systematically evaluated a prototype set of procedures called the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training (FAST) program. Describes the design of this applied program and evaluates its efficacy in improving the academic performance of freshman student athletes, male and female, from a variety of athletic programs. The FAST program consistently improved the grade point average of this representative sample. (Author/KS)
Design and Systematic Evaluation of the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training Program
<cn> <bold>By: M. K. Harney</bold>>
> <bold>Thomas A. Brigham</bold>
>
> <bold>M. Sanders</bold>
>
<bold>Acknowledgement: </bold>This article is the result of an amalgamation of the first author's dissertation research and an earlier study by the second author. The research was supported in part by the Self-Control Research Unit and the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, Washington State University.The authors wish to thank Jim Walden, head football coach, Rich Tucker, academic coordinator, Naomi Lee, academic counselor, Ron Laramie, graduate assistant, and Richard Young, director of intercollegiate athletics, for their enthusiastic cooperation and assistance. The procedural suggestions of Armando deArmas are also gratefully acknowledged.
The academic performance of student athletes during their freshman year in college is an appropriate concern for the faculty and administrators of institutions of higher education, the general public, and most important, the student athletes themselves. Colleges and universities offer a variety of services such as counseling, tutoring, remedial courses, study tables, and study-skills training in an attempt to improve the first-year academic performance of “high-risk” groups such as student athletes (Bednar & Weinberg, 1970; Crawford, McFarland, & Rhatigan, 1978; Entwisle, 1960; Richards, 1981). Nonetheless, a high percentage of student athletes are in academic difficulty by the end of their first year in college (Purdy, Hufnagel, & Eitzen, 1981; Stecklein & Dameron, 1965). This problem frequently follows them throughout their academic career, making academic progress difficult (Pantages & Creedon, 1978). Although estimates as to the overall extent of this problem vary from 20% to 80% (e.g., Brede & Camp, 1982; Harrison, 1976; Larsen, 1973; Spivey & Jones, 1975), it is clear that considerable improvement can and must be made in providing the opportunity to gain maximum benefit from academic experiences at institutions of higher education. Furthermore, because student athletes are not the only group who have difficulties at our colleges and universities, programs developed to assist student athletes may also be of general benefit to other student groups.
The simplest and most commonly used approach in assisting student athletes academically is the standard
In contrast, there is an extensive literature on the general effort to improve academic skills and general academic performance for nonathletes (for recent reviews see Kirschenbaum & Perri, 1982; Richards, 1981). Dating back to the early work of Behrens (1935) on study-skills training, a number of diverse programs have been developed that focus on some element related to academic improvement. Such programs have dealt with reading effectiveness (Robinson, 1970), note taking (Pauk, 1962; Robin, Martello, Foxx, & Archable, 1977), effective test taking (Kirkland & Hollandsworth, 1980), training in anxiety reduction (Denny & Rupert, 1977; Lent & Russell, 1978; Spielberger, Weitz, & Denny, 1962), problem solving (Richards & Perri, 1978), planning strategies (Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Kirschenbaum, Mallet, Humphrey, & Tomarken, 1982; Kirschenbaum, Tomarken, & Ordman, 1982), contracting (G. Goldman, 1978), self-control procedures (Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Richards, 1975; Richards & Perri, 1978), multicomponent implementation (Kirschenbaum & Perri, 1982; Malett, Kirschenbaum, & Humphrey, 1983), patterns of student-faculty interaction (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977), and program-personality fit (Robyak & Downey, 1978; Robyak & Patton, 1977). But despite the extensive effort to improve academic performance, very little agreement has been reached in matching approaches and conditions with individual students (Kirschenbaum & Perri, 1982; Mitchell & Piatkowska, 1974; Robyak & Patton, 1977).
An analysis of the literature, however, suggests that a potentially successful academic improvement program could focus on a very limited set of academically significant behavior within a lengthy and well-structured format. Specifically, analysis of factors or behavior that clearly differentiates good students from poorer ones (when all else is held equal) indicates that good students attend class regularly, take understandable notes in some organized manner, and turn in assignments and take tests on time (Garza, 1981/1983; Robin et al., 1977; Thomas, 1978). Similarly, self-attributed reasons for freshman-year academic failure suggest that the absence or low frequency of these responses lead to academic underachievement and failure (Hart & Keller, 1980).
Finally, the current literature suffers from a lack of programmatic research designed to produce effective applied programs. Much of the research in this area has consisted of single studies conducted under tightly controlled conditions not available or relevant to real world settings. Thus, the practical utility of such academic improvement programs for large-scale use has not been demonstrated. What appears to be required to deal with these problems is an educational/behavioral technology that can be widely disseminated and practically implemented by personnel presently available in colleges or universities. Brigham and Catania (1978) noted that the development of a behavioral technology is an extended process that progresses through several interrelated stages in which prototype procedures are experimentally tested and translated into procedures appropriate for the applied setting.
In an attempt to deal with the problems and issues related to the academic performance of freshman student athletes, the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training (FAST) program was designed to be such a prototype set of procedures. Development of the FAST program was based on the following assumptions and assessments: First, a program was needed that could be successfully implemented and maintained by Athletic Department staff with little outside assistance. Second, resources were limited, therefore the program had to be low cost. Third, an assessment of the resources available on campus indicated that there already were counseling and remedial-tutorial services and study-skills instruction available to all students through other programs at Washington State University. Consequently, we decided to use these resources as needed, not try to duplicate them in the program. Rather, based on a behavioral analysis of the literature presented earlier, we decided to focus the program on class attendance, note taking, and assignment completion.
The paradigm for encouraging these academic behaviors was based on using the football program's study table, which all freshman and deficient student athletes are required to attend, as a negative reinforcer. This study table is reported to be aversive, as its designated time requirements often interfere with more desirable activities. Following a basic psychological principle, that the opportunity to escape from and/or avoid an aversive situation (e.g., study table) will reinforce or positively motivate the individual's response that produced it (Catania & Brigham, 1978; Skinner, 1953), the systematic and contingent reduction of required study-table time could be used to reinforce the desired responses of attending class, taking acceptable notes, and completing assignments on time. We assumed that an increase in these behaviors would more than compensate for the reduction in required study-table time. The resulting FAST contingency management and basic study-skills program was systematically evaluated and further developed in the following experiments conducted over a 2-year period, and in a subsequent field test, without direct principal investigator involvement.
Experiment 1
> <h31 id="cou-33-4-454-d209e235">Method</h31>
<bold>Subjects</bold>
Subjects were 24 freshman student athletes recruited from the football program at Washington State University. Such individuals have traditionally been required by their coaches to attend a 2-hr study-table session for 3 or 4 nights each week during their freshman year. These student athletes were contacted at their first study-table meeting of the fall semester and were given a detailed procedural description of the experimental FAST program (every point presented in the procedures section was covered). <anchor name="b-fn1"></anchor><sups>1</sups> They were then offered the opportunity to participate in the FAST program in lieu of fulfilling their regular study-table requirements. All of the student athletes at this meeting agreed to participate and signed consent forms. The 100% participation in this and in subsequent studies probably reflects the opportunity to get out of something aversive—the study table—rather than indicating any specific characteristic of these student athletes.
Two comparison groups and an anonymous no-contact control group were used to evaluate program effects. The two comparison groups consisted of all freshman student athletes who had participated in the football program the previous 2 years. These student athletes had been required to attend the traditional study-table program during their freshman year, as described earlier. The nocontact control group was computer-generated independently by the registrar's office from incoming freshmen student records. This group was selected and matched to the experimental group on the basis of high-school grade point average, credit-hour load, sex, and ethnicity. The no-contact control and experimental groups were also compared on the difficulty of courses taken. Using Washington State University's general university requirements (a set of courses that met graduation distribution requirements) as the basis of comparison, and with both groups taking approximately two courses per semester, we found no differences between groups.
<bold>Procedures</bold>
The FAST program began the first week of the fall semester. All of the participants were initially required to attend three study-table sessions conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights each week throughout the school year. All FAST study tables were held in a standard classroom and lasted 2 hr, unless the student athlete was excused. A detailed program description that contained study-table requirements and procedural guidelines was handed out to all participants. Attendance for the full 2 hr was mandatory during the first week of the program so that basic instruction on organization of class notes and test-taking strategies could be presented. These sessions were also used to prompt specific academically oriented behaviors, including attendance in class, on-time completion of assignments, classroom involvement, and personal contact with instructors. After the first week individuals were able to earn release time from each study table by demonstrating the skills taught and the behaviors prompted during the instructional sessions (essentially an escape/avoidance contingency to systematically reinforce compliance with prescribed procedures).
Specifically, at the beginning of each study table, participants were allowed to produce and to be briefly quizzed on their lecture notes. The notes had to be in the student's own handwriting and meet the criterion established for adequate notes. Finally, each student athlete had to produce self-reported evidence of his attendance since the last study table. To ensure the accuracy of this self-reported evidence, all of the participants were cautioned that a team of graduates and undergraduates including senior student athletes assisting in the program were spot-checking class attendance. Any student athlete found to be unreliable in self-reporting was required to participate in early morning conditioning. This entailed meeting one of the football coaches at 7:00 a.m. and running approximately 3 miles (1.609 km) around an indoor field-house track.
If a participant met the requirements, he was relieved of his study-table obligation for that session. The entire process of checking attendance and notes required 5 min-10 min per student. Using six to eight well-trained proctors, it was possible to check and excuse all qualified students in less than 30 min. (It was important that this process be completed quickly and efficiently or the motivation for meeting the requirements would have been greatly reduced.) All student athletes who either failed to attend all of their classes or did not possess adequate notes simply attended the regularly scheduled 2-hr study table that evening. Individuals who reported late for a class or who could not successfully answer basic questions concerning their notes were obliged to remain in study table for 1 hr.
Any student athlete who demonstrated perfect adherence to the FAST requirements for 2 consecutive weeks was required to attend only 2 study-table nights instead of 3. These individuals were able to choose any 2 of the 3 available nights, but were still required to attend all of their classes and produce lecture notes to be relieved of the 2-hr obligation for those evenings. In addition, student athletes who satisfactorily progressed through the program and achieved a midterm or semester grade point average (GPA) of 3.0—a B average—or higher were then required to attend only 1 study-table night each week. These participants were required to maintain this level of academic performance, demonstrate attendance in all but one class for the previous week, and possess adequate notes for the material covered in their classes to remain on the 1-night per week system. If satisfactory performance was not maintained on either the 1- or 2-night per week systems, the student athlete was returned to the 3-night study-table requirement for 1 week, or until satisfactory performance was demonstrated.
<h31 id="cou-33-4-454-d209e257">Results</h31>The mean fall-semester GPA of students in the FAST program was 2.47, with an average credit load of 13.25 hr. The lowest GPA of any student in the program was 1.52, and four students were deficient (GPA less than 2.00). These results were compared with those achieved by freshman student athletes from the football program the previous 2 years (1980–1981 and 1981–1982 standard study tables) and with the computer-generated no-contact control group of freshman who entered Washington State University at the same time as the experimental group. Fall-semester descriptive results for all groups are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1.
>
><anchor name="fig1"></anchor>
>
><anchor name="tbl1"></anchor>
Fall-semester GPA scores for all of the groups were analyzed using a one-factor analysis of covariance ( ANCOVA) with high-school GPA serving as a covariate. The results of this analysis indicated a significant groups effect,
At the end of the freshman year, the mean cumulative GPA (both fall and spring semesters combined) of student athletes in the FAST program who carried an average total credit load of 25.78 hr was 2.34. The lowest GPA of any student in the program was 0.92, with five students being academically deficient. These results were again compared with those achieved by the student athletes in the 1980–1981 and 1981–1982 standard study tables and with the no-contact control group. Descriptive results of the freshman-year academic performance for all groups are presented in Table 2.
>
><anchor name="tbl2"></anchor>
Cumulative GPA scores for all of the groups were analyzed using an ANCOVA, with high-school GPA serving as a covariate. This analysis indicated a significant overall group effect,
Experiment 2
>
Fall-semester results from Experiment 1 indicate that the student athletes in the FAST program performed significantly better than all of the comparison groups while none of the differences among those groups were significant. The freshman-year cumulative results also supported the program's overall efficacy in improving the academic performance of student athletes as measured by mean GPA and number of students deficient across groups. The following years, a second study was undertaken to systematically replicate the findings of Experiment 1 and extend the FAST methodology to include both male and female freshman student athletes from a variety of athletic programs. Minor procedural changes were also made and incorporated into the FAST program in an effort to further improve the program's impact on freshman academic performance.
<h31 id="cou-33-4-454-d209e344">Method</h31><bold>Subjects</bold>
Participants were 31 freshman student athletes (21 men and 10 women) recruited from a variety of men's and women's athletic programs at Washington State University. These individuals were given information concerning the FAST program during their first study-table meeting of the fall semester and were offered the opportunity to participate in lieu of fulfilling their regular study-table requirements. All of the student athletes at this meeting volunteered to participate in the FAST program and signed consent forms.
A comparison group and an anonymous computer-generated no-contact control group were used to evaluate program effects. The comparison group consisted of 78 current freshman student athletes (56 men and 22 women) from a variety of men's and women's athletic programs at Washington State University, whose participation in the FAST program had not been requested. <anchor name="b-fn2"></anchor><sups>2</sups> The no-contact control group was again selected and matched to experimental subjects by the registrar's office on the basis of high-school GPA, credit load, sex, and ethnicity.
<bold>Procedures</bold>
The FAST procedures as outlined in Experiment 1 were implemented the first week of the fall-semester. Minor modifications in the FAST program included the addition of a fourth study table held on Sunday nights and the extension of all study tables to 2 ½ hr in length. Attendance at the additional Sunday night study table was mandatory throughout the semester, with no contingent escape or avoidance possible. In addition, all of the participants were required to complete a weekly assignment sheet on Sunday nights for each of their classes. These assignment sheets served to increase the salience of upcoming course work and were used to generate individualized contingencies in the FAST escape/avoidance paradigm. The objective of these program changes was to increase the students' ability to both monitor course requirements and plan how to meet them. All of the other procedures remained unchanged from Experiment 1.
<h31 id="cou-33-4-454-d209e360">Results</h31>At the end of fall semester, students in the FAST program had achieved a mean GPA of 2.44 (A = 4.0) while carrying a credit load of 13.13 hr. The lowest GPA of any student in the program was 1.18, and eight students were academically deficient (GPA less than 2.0). These results were compared with those achieved by an equivalent group of freshman student athletes whose participation in the program had not been requested and with a no-contact control group. Descriptive results (including a breakdown by sex) for all groups are presented in Table 3.
>
><anchor name="tbl3"></anchor>
Fall-semester GPA scores for all of the groups were analyzed using a one-factor ANCOVA, with high-school GPA serving as a covariate. This analysis produced an overall groups effect of
The number of students in each group who received a grade of F in one or more of their courses was analyzed using a
Additional Data
>
Since the completion of Experiment 2, additional data have been collected on the FAST program under less controlled conditions. Although these investigations are not described in detail here, they did generate information that is relevant to the overall evaluation of FAST.
The first of these studies occurred in the spring following Experiment 2. At that time for a variety of reasons it was decided to remove most of the students from the standard FAST program. <anchor name="b-fn3"></anchor><sups>3</sups> Of the 31 FAST participants from the fall semester, 5 were excused because of high academic performance, 12 were placed in a modified program, and 14 remained in the standard FAST program. The modified program involved a substantial reduction in the structure and reporting requirements of the standard program. The FAST requirements were replaced by a set of six instructional sessions on self-monitoring, stimulus control and planning, and a self-reporting contingency. Each Sunday, participating students attended a compulsory meeting to turn in a self-monitoring form covering class attendance, study hours, and assignment completion. If the form was properly filled in, the student was excused from all study-table requirements of the week. Failure to turn in the form meant that the student had to attend the regular study tables for the week. Thus, the study-table contingency was moved from class attendance, note taking, and assignment completion to reporting about those activities. On the other hand, the standard program continued unchanged in the spring semester.
The mean spring-semester GPA of student athletes in the modified program was 2.04, as compared to a mean of 2.43 for student athletes who remained in the FAST program. Spring-semester descriptive results for both groups are presented in Table 4. These spring GPA results were analyzed using a one-factor ANCOVA, with fall-semester GPA serving as a covariate. This analysis indicated that the FAST group had a significantly higher spring-semester GPA than did the modified program group,
>
><anchor name="tbl4"></anchor>
Although the class-attendance-study-table contingency was eliminated for the modified program group, class attendance continued to be measured for both groups. The mean number of classes missed during spring semester by student athletes in the modified and FAST groups was 17.17 (
As we noted earlier, a major objective of the research program was to develop a set of procedures that academic counselors in the athletic department could implement without additional resources or outside expertise. Consistent with that objective, a manual was drafted that described the goals, procedures, training, and personnel requirements of the FAST program. The first author then met with personnel from the athletic department to provide the approximately 10 hr of instruction in conducting the program.
The next fall, the two principal investigators took no direct role in the operation of FAST, and all responsibility for organizing, training personnel, and directing the program was taken by two members of the athletic department, N. Lee and M. Sanders. Although it is undoubtedly the case that some minor variations did occur, the directors reported that the FAST procedures were implemented basically as described in Experiment 2. Because of the positive results from the earlier investigations, all incoming freshman student athletes (70) were involved in the program that fall. This group produced a mean semester GPA of 2.52, whereas the mean GPA for all entering freshman at Washington State University that semester was 2.41. <anchor name="b-fn4"></anchor><sups>4</sups>
General Discussion
>
Results from the preceding experiments and studies indicate that the Freshman Athletic Scholastic Training program is an effective means of improving the academic performance of freshman student athletes. Replications further suggest that the FAST program can consistently produce positive results and is applicable to both male and female student athletes from a variety of athletic programs.
It is important to note that the analyses of the FAST program were based on overall GPA and not on individual course grades or examination scores, as is characteristic of much of the research in the literature (see Kirschenbaum & Perri, 1982, for a detailed discussion of dependent measures used in academic improvement programs). Although GPA is logically the single most important indicator of college-level academic performance, it is affected by a variety of factors other than study habits. As a consequence, it has been found to be a more difficult measure of academic improvement to affect than either individual course grades or exam scores (R. Goldman & Slaughter, 1976).
To date only the multicomponent Study Improvement Program (SIP; Kirschenbaum et al., 1982; Malett et al., 1983) involving relatively extensive training procedures has been able to document a consistent impact on freshman GPA similar to that found with the FAST program. Although SIP shares a number of features with the present program (e.g., structure and planning), it places much more emphasis on study-skills development. Kirschenbaum et al. (1982) also stressed the importance of a monthly planning, self-monitoring procedure for the maintenance of academic gains. At this point in the development of the two programs, it is difficult to make comparisons because the two student populations are considerably different. In the future, as each program continues to evolve, an analysis of their similarities and differences may lead to a better understanding of how to help students deal with the academic demands of universities.
At present, the FAST program appears to be a prototype set of procedures for working with student athletes from which an applied educational/behavioral technology can systematically develop. The program is based on simple training procedures, requires only limited resources, and can be successfully implemented by counseling personnel with little additional instruction. As a consequence, with appropriate modifications, FAST may be suitable for use with more advanced student athletes and other high-risk student populations as well. Such an extension to other high-risk groups is particularly important when one considers that more than 25% of incoming freshman decide not to reenroll or are ineligible for the following year, and less than 50% actually go on to graduate (registrar's office, Washington State University, 1985). Although the reenrollment decision is not solely a function of academic performance, it would be a major factor affecting such choices.
An aspect of the current FAST procedure that will likely require modification for the program to be used with other high-risk freshman groups is the escape/avoidance contingency. Although the opportunity to earn one's way out of study table was not directly experimentally evaluated in the present research, there can be little doubt that this contingency provided the major motivating factor encouraging students to engage in the more desirable academic responses. Candidly, on a number of dimensions, the whole system seems somewhat contrived (i.e., requiring students to attend a study table so that you can then allow them to escape it by engaging in the behavior that they should already be emitting in the first place). Ideally, it should be sufficient to inform students about such key behaviors and leave the rest to their good judgment. The evidence is, however, quite clear that this is not the case. Many students who are capable of doing university work are unable to do so because they fail to consistently emit these essential responses. University organizations and remedial programs often then require these students to attend study tables in an effort to improve their academic performance, despite the lack of evidence to support this approach. On the other hand, such students might benefit from the structure and support provided by programs like SIP and FAST. The specific modifications needed to make FAST applicable to a broader student population are currently under investigation.
Footnotes
<anchor name="fn1"></anchor><sups> 1 </sups> A set of materials describing the note-taking system, proctor training, and procedures for evaluating student performance may be obtained from T. A. Brigham, Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4830, for copying and mailing costs.
<anchor name="fn2"></anchor><sups> 2 </sups> These freshman student athletes were not required to participate in the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training program as they were either not viewed as being in need of academic assistance or their coaches were not fully supportive of the program. Academic records for these individuals were obtained with consent through Athletic Department release of information forms.
<anchor name="fn3"></anchor><sups> 3 </sups> It was decided to experimentally reduce the Freshman Athlete Scholastic Training requirements for a group of students because of questions about the necessity of all of procedures. Administrators and students argued that these rigorous demands could be eased in the second semester without any negative effects on academic performance.
<anchor name="fn4"></anchor><sups> 4 </sups> Individuals interested in the details of this field test should write to N. Lee or M. Sanders at the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-1610.
References
<anchor name="c1"></anchor>Bednar, R. L., & Weinberg, S. L. (1970). Ingredients of successful treatment programs for underachievers.
Behrens, H. D. (1935). Effects of a “How to Study” course.
Brede, R. M., & Camp, H. J. (1982, Winter). The two worlds of student-athletes.
Brigham, T. A., & Catania, A. C. (1978). The behavior analysis technology. In A. C.Catania & T. A.Brigham (Eds.),
Catania, A. E., & Brigham, T. A. (Eds.). (1978).
Crawford, A. E., McFarland, D. E., & Rhatigan, J. J. (1978). Special counseling programs for academic survival.
Denny, D. R., & Rupert, P. A. (1977). Desensitization and self-control in the treatment of test anxiety.
Entwisle, D. R. (1960). Evaluations of study-skills courses: A review.
Garza, J. G. (1983). A comparision of behavioral self-management techniques and behavioral contracting in combination with a standard course of college study-skills instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, 1981).
Goldman, G. (1978). Contract teaching of academic skills.
Goldman, R. D., & Slaughter, R. E. (1976). Why college grade point average is difficult to predict.
Greiner, J. M., & Karoly, P. (1976). Effects of self-control training on study activity and academic performance: An analysis of self-monitoring, self-reward, and systematic planning components.
Harrison, J. (1976, April).
Hart, D., & Keller, M. J. (1980). Self-reported reasons for poor academic performance of first-team freshman.
Kirkland, K., & Hollandsworth, J. G. (1980). Effective test taking: Skills-acquisition versus anxiety-reduction techniques.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., Malett, S. D., Humphrey, L. L., & Tomarken, A. J. (1982). Specificity of planning and the maintenance of self-control: One year follow-up of a study improvement program.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., & Perri, M. G. (1982). Improving academic competence in adults: A review of recent research.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., Tomarken, A. J., & Ordman, A. M. (1982). Specificity of planning and choice applied to adult self-control.
Larsen, S. W. (1973).
Lent, R. W., & Russell, R. K. (1978). Treatment of test anxiety by cue-controlled desensitization and study-skills training.
Malett, S. D., Kirschenbaum, D. S., & Humphrey, L. L. (1983). Description and subjective evaluation of an objectively successful study improvement program.
Mitchell, K. R., & Piatkowska, O. E. (1974). Effects of group treatment for college underachievers and bright failing under-achievers.
Nixon, A. (1983, Fall). Molding minds when the sun shines, or an experiment with daytime study hall.
Pantages, T. J., & Creedon, C. F. (1978). Studies of college attrition: 1950–1975.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition.
Pauk, W. (1962).
Pennypacker, H. S., Heckler, J. B., & Pennypacker, S. F. (1978). A university-wide system of personalized instruction: The personalized learning center. In A. C.Catania & T. A.Brigham (Eds.),
Purdy, D. A., Hufnagel, R., & Eitzen, D. S. (1981).
Richards, C. S. (1975). Behavior modification of studying through study skills advise and self-control procedures.
Richards, C. S. (1981). Improving college students' study behaviors through self-control techniques: A brief review.
Richards, C. S., & Perri, M. G. (1978). Do self-control treatments last? An evaluation of behavioral problem solving and faded counselor contact as treatment maintenance strategies.
Robin, A., Martello, J., Foxx, R. M., & Archable, C. (1977). Teaching note-taking skills to underachieving college students.
Robinson, F. P. (1970).
Robyak, J. E., & Downey, R. G. (1978). Effectiveness of a study-skills course for students of different academic achievement levels and personality types.
Robyak, J. E., & Patton, M. J. (1977). The effectiveness of a study-skills course for students of different personality types.
Skinner, B. S. (1953).
Spielberger, C. D., Weitz, H., & Denny, J. P. (1962). Group counseling and academic performance of anxious college students.
Spivey, D., & Jones, T. A. (1975). Intercollegiate athletic servitude: A case study of the black Illini student-athletes, 1981–1967.
Stecklein, J. E., & Dameron, L. D. (1965).
Steel, J. A. (1982, January).
Thomas, G. S. (1978). Use of student notes and lecture summaries as study guides for recall.