Skip to main content

SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.

    Article  Google 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.

  6. Biggs, J. B. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 127–138.

    Article  Google 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.

  9. Caverly, D. C. (1985, December). Textbook study strategies: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Mixed methods approaches. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kiewra, K. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 366–374.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science, 16, 233–249.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth A. Kiewra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jairam, D., Kiewra, K.A., Rogers-Kasson, S. et al. SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems. Instr Sci 42, 409–420 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9295-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • SQ3R
  • SOAR
  • Learning strategies