Search

A battery of instruments were administered to 1240 junior high, senior high, and college students to assess their academic aptitude, self-efficacy, achievement orientation, and course-specific study actities. Also assessed were characteristics of the 22 social science courses within which these students were enrolled. The results revealed (a) an increase in demand for information capacity between junior and senior high school and an increase in demand on integration activities between junior high school and college; (b) significant positive correlations between academic achievement and both academic aptitude and self-efficacy ratings; (c) an interaction, across grade levels, between achievement orientation scales and achievement; (d) different patterns of relationships between the student characteristic measures and study scales across grade levels; and (f) some indication that grade-related differences in course features may account for these grade-related differences in the pattern of correlations between student characteristics and study activities.

A self-report method was used to assess the frequency of engagement in 15 varieties of study activities by 1240 junior high, senior high, and college students enrolled in 22 social science courses. Also assessed, by means of observations and document analyses, were 14 characteristics of these courses. The results revealed (a) a comparatively low incidence of engagement in planful and generative study activities, (b) an increase in engagement in such activities across grade levels, (c) parallel increases across levels in course demands for and support of engagement in these activities, (d) substantial variation between courses within grade level in study-activity engagement, but (e) only inconsistent relationships between course-to-course engagement variation and course differences in demands and supports.

This article presents a hypothetical model, based largely on extant laboratory research, of (a) attributes of proficiency at academic studying, and (b) course features that should act to promote and support students' engagement in sustained self-directed learning. This ideal model is contrasted with normative study behavior as indexed by results from a recent survey of adolescents' study activities. Principles regarding the way in which course demands and supports act to inhibit study proficiency in academic settings are discussed.

Students' reported total study time, their allocation of that time to specific study activities, and relationships between such allocations and achievement were examined across three grade levels, junior high, senior high, and college. Whereas reported total study time measures differed significantly across grade levels and among courses within levels, correlations of the total time indices with achievement did not differ significantly from zero. The allocation of time to specific study activities also varied across grade levels, as did correlations between these specific activities and achievement. The grade-level results, however, were not representative of particular courses within grade levels. These within-grade differences were not accountable in terms of corresponding differences in course demands.

After introducing the larger investigation of which the present paper is a part, this paper reports on the development and application of a framework for assessing course characteristics. The framework distinguishes three types of features: apparent demands (five cognitive and two self-management), net demands adjusted for supports (four cognitive and one self-management), and net demands adjusted for compensations (one cognitive and one self-management). Course profiles, assessed by classroom observations and analyses of all course documents, of 11 junior high school, 9 senior high school, and 2 college social science courses are reported and discussed. Findings include: (1) complex patterns of variation across educational levels in the profiles of apparent and net demands for each of the types of demand assessed; and (2) wide ranges within educational levels in the magnitude of each of these features. Discussion focuses on the utility of the framework for (1) predicting variance in students' performances and (2) constructing, evaluating, and revising curriculum.