Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 409–420 | Cite as

SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems

  • Dharma Jairam
  • Kenneth A. KiewraEmail author
  • Sarah Rogers-Kasson
  • Melissa Patterson-Hazley
  • Kim Marxhausen


Although researchers have long investigated ways to improve study habits and raise achievement, few studies compare study strategy systems with one another. No study to date has compared the long popular SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review) system with the more modern SOAR (Select, Organize, Associate, Regulate) system. This study directly compared SQ3R and SOAR to determine which is most effective. College students trained in the SQ3R or SOAR system and given corresponding study materials used their respective method to study a text in preparation for a test assessing fact, relationship, and concept learning. Results confirmed that students who used the SOAR system outperformed those who used the SQ3R system and learned 20 % more relationships, 14 % more facts, and 13 % more concepts. Results were attributed to SOAR’s cognitive processing advantages over SQ3R.


SQ3R SOAR Learning strategies 


  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, T.H. (1983). Effect of subject and training variables on the SQ3R study method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  9. Caverly, D. C. (1985, December). Textbook study strategies: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Mixed methods approaches. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  14. Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (2000). Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  17. Gubbels, P.S. (1999). College student studying: A collected case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harwell, M. R. (1988). Univariate vs. multivariate tests: ANOVA versus MANOVA. Educational Research Quarterly, 12, 20–28.Google Scholar
  20. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2009). An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 602–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborate studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiewra, K. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science, 16, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiewra, K. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Helping students SOAR to success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larson, R., & Farber, B. (2012). Elementary statistics: Picturing the world. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1995). Teaching children to be literate: A reflective approach. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.Google Scholar
  35. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The Promise of educational psychology Volume 2: Teaching for meaningful learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the designing of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Education.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, F. P. (1941). Effective study. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, F. P. (1962). Effective reading. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spor, M., & Schneider, B. (1999). Content reading strategies: What teachers know, use, and want to learn. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triachic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. Tadlock, D. F. (1978). SQ3R: Why it works, based on information processing theory of learning. Journal of Reading, 22, 110–112.Google Scholar
  56. Titsworth, S. (2004). Students’ note taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dharma Jairam
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sarah Rogers-Kasson
    • 2
  • Melissa Patterson-Hazley
    • 2
  • Kim Marxhausen
    • 2
  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityErieUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska, LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations