This study compared the effects of two formats for optional study sessions (game format vs. student-directed question and answer format) on attendance and quiz performance in a college research methods course. An alternating treatments design was used across two course sections, with the study session format alternating weekly between a game (e.g., Jeopardy, Millionaire) and question/answer format. Results from Study 1 found no consistent differences between the formats on attendance at study sessions or weekly quiz performance, though both formats improved quiz scores relative to baseline.

1. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
DOI 10.1007/s10864-006-9037-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Comparison of Study Session Formats on Attendance
and Quiz Performance in a College Course
Nancy A. Neef · Traci Cihon · Tracy Kettering ·
Amanda Guld · Judah B. Axe · Madoka Itoi ·
Ruth DeBar
Published online: 17 January 2007
C
Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007
Abstract We compared two formats for optional study sessions offered to students in a
research methods course. Study sessions alternated between a game format (e.g., Behavioral
Jeopardy) and a student-directed question and answer format, presented in counterbalanced
order across different sections of the same course. The results of the alternating treatments
design in Study 1 indicated that, despite improvements in quiz performance relative to
baseline, there were no consistent differences between the two formats on attendance at the
study sessions or on weekly quiz performance. Similar results were obtained in a systematic
replication (Study 2) in which opportunities to respond to game questions were equated
across study sessions.
Keywords College students . Game vs. question and answer study sessions . Study
session format . Quiz performance
There is limited evidence that supplemental study sessions may help college students perform
better on tests. In one of the few studies that examined the usefulness of study sessions,
Aamodt (1982a) reported that the mean score on a multiple choice test in a general psychology
course was higher for students who had attended a study session (n = 42) than for students
who had not attended (n = 43). The study session did not, however, enhance the test
performance of students who scored in the low range of an assessment of academic ability.
In an effort to determine whether repetition of the information, clarification of material,
organization of the material, or student motivation accounted for the results, Aamodt (1982b)
examined study session format with 275 students in the same general psychology course.
The mean score on a 50-item multiple choice final examination was 43.1 for the 108 students
who attended a study session in which the material was organized and reviewed in outline
form and who had a chance to ask questions. This was somewhat higher than for the 23
students who attended a study session involving only questions and answers (M = 40.3)
N. A. Neef () · T. Cihon · T. Kettering · A. Guld · J. B. Axe · M. Itoi · R. DeBar
The Ohio State University, College of Education, School of PAES, 1945 N. High St., 367 Arps Hall,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
e-mail: neef.2@osu.edu
Springer

2. 236 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
and for the 144 students who did not attend study sessions (M = 39.8). However, unequal
sample size may decrease the confidence of the conclusions because of the probability of a
Type I error.
In another variation of study session format, Gibson (1991) based study sessions for a
research methods course on the popular TV show, Jeopardy. Although he reported anecdotally
that students found the competitive game format entertaining and beneficial, he did not assess
its effects on student performance.
Given the few controlled studies available on adjunctive study sessions, additional research
is needed to determine types of study sessions that lead to improved outcomes for college
students. The purposes of the present investigations, therefore, were to examine (a) the effects
of a game format versus a student-directed question and answer (QA) format on attendance
at optional study sessions, and (b) the effects of participation in study sessions with each
format on subsequent quiz performance.
Study 1
Method
Participants and setting
The participants were 44 students in special education, psychology, and physical education
who were enrolled in one of two sections of a graduate level behavioral research methods
course. Twenty-nine students were enrolled in the afternoon section and 17 students were
enrolled in the evening section. Classes met for 2 hr 18 min once per week during the 10 week
quarter. Optional study sessions were held weekly for 30 min immediately preceding each
class. Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) who had previously taken the course conducted
the study sessions under the supervision of the course instructor as part of a college teaching
practicum for their doctoral program. The study sessions were held in the same classroom as
the subsequent class sessions. The classrooms were equipped with a chalkboard, a computer,
a liquid crystal display (LCD) projector and screen, and rows of tables where students were
seated.
Procedures and experimental design
An alternating treatments design was used in which the format of the study sessions alternated
weekly between games and QA. As portrayed in Table 1, the format was counterbalanced
across the two course sections (i.e., when games were conducted with the evening section,
QA was implemented using the same material with the afternoon section and vice versa).
The availability and format of the optional study session was announced in class each week
and posted on the course web site for the respective sections. Students who arrived no later
than 10 min after the start of the study session were allowed to participate and wrote their
name on a sign-in sheet. One of the GTAs monitored this process.
Games. One of four games was used during each game study session: Behavioral Buzz-In,
Who Wants to Be a Behavioral Millionaire, Behavioral Jeopardy, and T-ABA-OO. At the
start of the session, the GTAs explained the rules of the game and demonstrated with one
or more examples. At the conclusion of the session, the student or student team who had
accumulated the most points, correct words, or money (depending on the game as described
below) was decreed the winner.
Springer

3. J
Behav
Educ
(2007)
16:235–249
237
Table 1 Types of study sessions across units/weeks for each course section in studies 1 and 2
Study 1 study sessions Study 2 study sessions
Week Unit (Topic added cumulatively) Afternoon section Evening section Afternoon section Evening section
1 Characteristics of ABA research Game (T-ABA-OO) QA QA Game (Single subject squares)
2 Measurement QA Game (T-ABA-OO) Game (Single subject squares) QA
3 Recording Game (Beh Buzz In) QA QA Game (Behavioral token)
4 Reliability QA Game (Beh Buzz In) Game (Behavioral token) QA
5 Experimental design: reversal
multi-element
Game (Millionaire) QA QA Game (Millionaire)
6 Experimental design: multiple baseline
multiple probe
QA Game (Millionaire) Game (Millionaire) QA
7 Experimental design: changing criterion Game (Jeopardy) QA QA Game (Jeopardy)
8 Social validity QA Game (Jeopardy) Game (Jeopardy) QA
Springer

4. 238 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
With Behavioral Buzz-In, one of the GTAs posed a question pertaining to an objective
from the most recent (current) or previous weeks’ material (review) (e.g., “What are 4 criteria
for good measurement?”). The first team of 4 to 5 students to signal with the buzzer they had
been given was called on to answer the question. If a student on that team gave the correct
answer, the team was awarded a point. If the question was answered incorrectly, the next
team to signal with a buzzer was called on and awarded a point for the correct response. If no
teams signaled or answered correctly, the GTAs stated the correct response to the question.
The GTA then presented the next question. This process was repeated for the duration of the
session.
For T-ABA-OO, GTAs prepared index cards with key terms from the course material.
Students took turns presenting usage-related clues to their 4 to 5 teammates in order to evoke
the term on the card. For example, if the term on the card was “reliability,” the student might
present clues consisting of a definition (“the consistency of a measurement instrument”) or
other contextual information (e.g., “one of the criteria for a good measurement instrument,”
“interobserver agreement,” “split-half,” “alternate forms,” “agreements over the sum of
agreements plus disagreements times 100,” etc.) Once a teammate stated the target term,
the student confirmed it as correct and presented clues for the term on the next index card.
The process continued in this manner for 1 min, after which another student took a turn as
the presenter. The GTAs announced the 1 min times and kept track of the number of words
identified by each team for the duration of the study session.
In Who Wants to Be a Behavioral Millionaire, each question and four answer choices
were displayed using a PowerPoint r
template for the game. One student volunteered to
be the contestant. The student was given three “lifelines” or methods to obtain assistance
in answering the questions. These included an opportunity to ask a fellow student for the
correct answer to one question, an opportunity to poll the class as to the correct answer for
one question, and to have two of the incorrect answers removed from the four options for
one question (“50/50”). At any point during the session, the participant could choose to stop
playing and relinquish his or her place to another student.
Behavioral Jeopardy also was designed with a PowerPoint r
template. This template
presented six categories of questions taken from current and review material (e.g., measure-
ment, experimental design, social validity). Students were divided into three teams. The team
that had provided the most recent correct response to a question selected the category and
monetary amount of the next question.
Student-directed QA. During QA study sessions, students were invited to ask questions
about the material. Other students or one of the GTAs then provided the answers. The course
instructor was present to ensure that accurate responses were given.
Quizzes
A post-study session quiz was administered during the first 15 min of each class session.
The quizzes were cumulative and consisted of questions for 5 points from the previous
week’s material and questions for up to 5 points from earlier review material. One point was
allocated for each correct answer to a question (or part of a question when the question called
for more than one discrete response). All quiz questions required short answers and were
directly related to the objectives specified for the respective units. For example, a question
for the objective, “Given data recorded by 2 observers, calculate interobserver agreement
according to a specified method” consisted of asking students to calculate occurrence and
nonoccurrence agreement for hypothetical data collected by two observers. Post quiz scores
constituted 49% of each student’s grade for the course.
Springer

5. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 239
Baseline quizzes that contained different but equivalent questions were administered in the
first class before delivery of any lectures or study sessions. Baseline and post-study session
quizzes contained an equal number of factual and application type questions. The quizzes
differed with respect to either the stimuli in examples (e.g., different observer recordings for
the calculation of interobserver agreement) or the particular concept addressed in a related
class of concepts (e.g., sensitivity or accuracy as one of the criteria for good measurement).
To control for the effects of motivation on performance, students were told that they would
not be penalized for incorrect answers on baseline quizzes, but that points earned for correct
answers would be applied to the corresponding post quiz (which counted toward the students’
course grade). We did not inform students of whether their answers on the baseline quizzes
were correct until after they had taken the corresponding post quiz.
Baseline and post quizzes were counterbalanced across the two sections of the course.
Table 1 displays the experimental arrangement for both sections. Thus, baseline quiz ques-
tions for one section served as post quiz questions for the other section.
Dependent measures
In order to assess the extent to which study session format affected participation, data
were collected on the percentage of students who attended study sessions with each format.
Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of students who attended a study session
by total number of students in the class section. In order to assess the effects of study session
format on quiz performance, we calculated the mean percentage correct on weekly quizzes.
Data were analyzed separately for baseline and post quizzes, for students who did versus
students who did not attend study sessions, and for game format versus QA format.
Interobserver agreement
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed on 30% of the quizzes across all sessions. IOA
was calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements. Mean IOA for
baseline quizzes was 87% (range, 68% to 95%). Mean IOA for experimental conditions
was 85% (range, 76% to 85%). Disagreements were generally the result of judgments that
required interpretation, such as whether a student’s example met criterion for a correct
response.
Acceptability ratings
Attendance provided a behavioral measure of student satisfaction with study sessions. We
supplemented this by asking students who attended the sessions to rate their satisfaction
with the sessions. Students were asked to circle the number on a 5-point scale indicating
the helpfulness of study sessions, preferences for study session format, the extent to which
they would recommend the study sessions in each format for future classes, and the extent
to which they relied on study sessions versus independent studying for quiz preparation. In
addition, students were asked open-ended questions about the games they most and least
preferred.
Results and discussion
The mean percentage attendance at study sessions with each format for the combined sections
is displayed in the top panel of Fig. 1. The mean attendance during game format study sessions
Springer

6. 240 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
Fig. 1 The mean percentage of students in Study 1 who attended game format (shaded bars) and QA
format (striped bars) optional study sessions across weeks (top panel); the mean percentage correct on quizzes
(bottom panel) for baseline (open triangles), for students who did not attend study sessions (open squares), for
students who attended game study sessions (diamonds), and for students who attended QA study sessions
(filled triangles)
was 71% (range, 41% to 93%). The mean attendance during QA format study sessions
was 65% (range, 31% to 86%).
Although there were no consistent differences in attendance as a function of study session
format, most students (75%) reported a preference for the QA format. On a scale of 1 (not
at all) to 5 (very), the majority of students rated the QA format as very helpful (M = 4.5),
and recommended it for future study sessions (M = 4.3). Student perceptions of games
were more idiosyncratic. Approximately one-third of the students rated the game format
Springer

7. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 241
as very helpful and one-third rated it as not at all helpful (M = 3.0 on a scale of 1 to 5).
Similarly, one third of the students recommended the game format for future study sessions
(M = 3.0). The types of games (e.g., team vs. individual, opportunities for participation vs.
observation) may have influenced preferences, and could account for the favorable response
to games reported anecdotally by Gibson (1991). Who Wants to Be a Behavioral Millionaire
and Behavioral Jeopardy were cited most often as preferred games, whereas T-ABA-OO and
Behavioral Buzz-In were most often cited as the least preferred games.
Despite the more favorable response to the QA format, data in the bottom panel of
Fig. 1 indicate that mean weekly post quiz scores were not differentially affected by study
session format; quiz scores were similar for students who attended the game (M = 75%,
range = 60% to 90%) and QA study sessions (M = 78%, range = 70% to 91%). The
mean percentage correct on quizzes for students who did not attend study sessions was
67% (range, 56% to 82%). All students showed similar improvements relative to baseline
(baseline M = 13%; range, 0% to 23%). These quiz score means, standard deviations and
ranges are summarized in the first four rows of Table 2.
Figure 2, which shows the results for each section, indicates that the mean percentage
correct on quizzes was similar for the afternoon section (M = 71%; range, 52% to 82%)
and the evening section (M = 72%; range, 60% to 84%), regardless of study session format.
Although attendance at study sessions was higher for the evening section (M = 85%; range,
76% to 93%) than for the afternoon section (M = 50%; range, 31% to 75%), the data do
not suggest that study session attendance was strongly correlated with higher quiz scores.
In an effort to examine the external validity of these results, we conducted a systematic
replication in Study 2. We extended Study 1 by replacing games reported as least preferred
with games that were similar to preferred games, by providing multiple opportunities for all
students to participate actively, and by assessing the integrity of procedural implementation.
Study 2
Method
Participants and setting
The participants were 58 students who were enrolled in one of two sections of a graduate
level behavioral research methods course. Thirty-three students were enrolled in the afternoon
section and 25 students were enrolled in the evening section. Each class met weekly for 2 hr
and 18 min during the quarter. The setting was similar to that described for Study 1.
Table 2 Dependent variable (quiz score) estimates and specific calculations
Condition Mean quiz score Standard deviation Range
Study 1 BL 12.63% 7.50 0%–23%
Study 1 No review 67.38% 7.74 56%–82%
Study 1 Game format 74.62% 10.46 60%–90%
Study 1 QA format 77.50% 8.23 70%–91%
Study 2 BL 6.28% 3.38 0%–10%
Study 2 No review 78.83% 10.39 63%–92%
Study 2 Game format 80.64% 5.96 70%–92%
Study 2 QA format 81.80% 7.68 69%–93%
Springer

8. 242 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
Fig. 2 The mean percentage of students who attended game format (striped bars) and QA format (shaded
bars) study sessions and the mean percentage of correct responses on quizzes (closed squares) across weeks
for the afternoon section of study 1 (top panel) and the evening section of Study 1 (bottom panel)
Procedures and experimental design
Experimental arrangements were similar to those in Study 1 with respect to the counterbal-
anced alternation of game and QA formats across sections using an alternating treatments
design. They are portrayed in the right column of Table 1. The optional study sessions,
conducted by the instructor and GTAs, were held weekly one half hour before each class. At
Springer

9. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 243
the end of each class meeting, the instructor announced the type of study session that would
occur the following week. This information was posted on the course website as well.
Games. As in Study 1, game study sessions encompassed current and review material
presented in a manner resembling popular commercial games. A different game was pre-
sented each session using a PowerPoint template modeled after the commercial game (except
for Behavioral Token, as described below). At the start of each session, a GTA divided the
students into teams (except with Behavioral Token) and read the rules for the game. The
game was conducted for the remainder of the 30 min session. The GTAs praised correct
responses and corrected errors.
Although the games differed with respect to the rules and structure (e.g., how stimuli were
portrayed and winners determined), the games were similar with respect to the types and
numbers of questions asked and provision of feedback on responses. Behavioral Jeopardy
was the same as previously described. Who Wants to Be a Behavioral Millionaire was
similar in presentation to that described in Study 1 but was modified to allow more students
opportunities for active participation. Students were divided into two teams. Each team was
alternately given the chance to answer the next question, with students within each team
taking turns. Questions increased with difficulty as the game continued and thus were worth
more fictitious monetary values. The team that acquired the highest monetary value was
declared the winner.
Single Subject Squares was similar to the television game show, Hollywood Squares.
Students were divided into two teams, designated by Xs and Os. A grid with nine cartoon
characters was presented on the screen. Teams (and students within each team) took turns
choosing a character and answering the question posed by each character (read aloud by
a GTA). When a student gave a correct answer, the GTA placed an X or an O in the
corresponding square. The first team to achieve a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row of Xs
or Os on the game grid was designated as the winner.
Behavioral Token was modeled after the game, Bingo. Each student was given a sheet
of paper with a different grid containing five rows and five columns of terms or concepts
discussed in class or assigned readings. A GTA shuffled index cards containing a definition
or characteristic corresponding to a term or definition and read each one twice. Students then
put an X through the corresponding definition or characteristic on their grid. Students were
to declare “Bingo” when Xs had been inserted through a row or column. A GTA checked the
sheet to ensure that the row or column of terms matched the definitions that had been read
and declared the student a winner.
QA. QA review sessions represented a more traditional student-led study session
similar to that described in Study 1. The GTAs asked the students if they had any questions
regarding any material presented during the class sessions. Questions asked by the students
were repeated and then answered by the GTAs or other students attending the review session.
The GTAs praised correct answers given by students in response to any question, and provided
elaboration or correction if appropriate.
Procedural integrity
The course instructor or a GTA collected procedural integrity data using a checklist dur-
ing 100% of the study sessions. Items on the procedural integrity checklist included taking
attendance, beginning within 5 min of the scheduled session, reading the rules for games,
ensuring that rules for games were followed, repeating questions asked by students, giving
correct answers to questions, and praising correct responses and giving corrective feedback
for incorrect responses. The checklist included provision for all students to respond, and
Springer

10. 244 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
(where applicable for games) that all students on a team had responded once before any
student was given an opportunity to respond again. The procedural integrity checklist in-
dicated that a mean of 25 opportunities to respond was presented during each game study
session. The number of questions during the QA study sessions varied because they were
controlled by the students rather than by the experimenters.
Mean procedural integrity for study sessions presented in the QA format was 96%
(range, 87% to 100%). Mean procedural integrity for study sessions presented in game
format was 99% (range, 97% to 100%).
Quizzes
Baseline and post-session quizzes were constructed and administered in the same manner as
described for Study 1. Factual and application type questions were equated across quizzes.
Interobserver agreement
The primary grader (the course instructor) and a secondary grader (one of the GTAs) inde-
pendently scored 30% of all pretest and posttest quizzes across all class sessions and both
sections of the course. Interobserver agreement was calculated on an item-by-item basis.
Agreements were divided by the sum of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by
100%. Mean interobserver agreement for baseline quizzes was 95% (range, 94% to 97%).
Mean interobserver agreement for quizzes following study sessions was 93% (range, 79%
to 100%).
Acceptability ratings
During the last class session, students anonymously completed the same social validity
questionnaire described in Study 1.
Results and discussion
The mean percentage of students attending study sessions with each format is shown in
the top panel of Fig. 3. As with Study 1, attendance was similarly high for both the game
(M = 61%; range, 45% to 88%) and QA formats (M = 64%; range, 48% to 83%). On
average, attendance was higher for students in the evening section (M = 70%) than for
students in the afternoon section (M = 55%).
Results of the acceptability rating questionnaire suggested that overall, participants found
the game and QA review sessions helpful to some extent (M = 3.7 and 3.1, respectively,
on a scale of 1 for “not at all” to 5 for “very”). Most students in the afternoon section (58%)
reported a preference for the game format whereas most students in the evening section (65%)
reported a preference for the QA format, similar to their respective ratings of the extent
to which they would recommend each format for future sessions. Reported preferences for
specific games were idiosyncratic in that the same games cited as favorites by some students
were cited as least favorite by others, although many reported liking Behavioral Jeopardy.
Consistent with the results of Study 1, the bottom panel of Fig. 3 shows that there were
no differences in quiz scores based on study session format (game M = 81%; range, 70%
to 92%; QA M = 82%; range, 69% to 93%). Likewise, there were no differences in
quiz scores between students who did and did not attend the study sessions (study session
M = 81%; range, 70% to 93%; no study session M = 79%; range, 63% to 92%). All
Springer

11. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 245
Fig. 3 The mean percentage of students in Study 2 who attended game format (shaded bars) and QA
format (striped bars) optional study sessions across weeks (top panel); the mean percentage correct on quizzes
(bottom panel) for baseline (open triangles), for students who did not attend study sessions (open squares), for
students who attended game study sessions (diamonds), and for students who attended QA study sessions
(filled triangles)
students showed similar improvements in scores relative to baseline (baseline M = 6%;
range, 0% to 10%). The quiz score means, standard deviations, and ranges are summarized
in the last four rows of Table 2.
Figure 4 displays the results for the individual sections. For the afternoon section, mean
attendance at study sessions was 55% (range, 45% to 65%), and the mean for quiz scores was
72% (range, 64% to 80%). Mean attendance was higher for the evening section (70%; range
Springer

12. 246 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
Fig. 4 The mean percentage of students who attended game format (striped bars) and QA format (shaded
bars) study sessions and the mean percentage of correct responses on quizzes (closed squares) across weeks
for the afternoon section of study 1 (top panel) and the evening section of Study 2 (bottom panel)
48% to 88%), although mean quiz scores were similar to those for the afternoon section
(73%; range, 64% to 81%). As with Study 1, visual analysis of these data do not indicate
that attendance at study sessions was correlated with higher quiz scores.
The results suggesting that study session attendance did not affect quiz scores must
be interpreted cautiously, however, in view of several considerations. First, because study
session attendance was optional and no attempt was made to assign students to experimental
Springer

13. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 247
conditions, it may be that students who elected not to attend study sessions were those able
to study effectively on their own. In fact, 73% of the respondents reported that they relied
principally on their own studying to prepare for quizzes. Second, because comparisons were
made between groups, it cannot be determined if students who attended study sessions might
have had lower quiz scores had they not attended, or if students who did not attend study
sessions might have had higher quiz scores if they had attended.
In an effort to determine whether study sessions might have differentially affected low-
performing students, data for individual students whose mean quiz scores were below 70%
were analyzed separately. No consistent differences in quiz scores were observed. In addition,
data were analyzed separately based on the type of quiz questions. No consistent differences
were found based on quiz questions that addressed current versus review material, or on quiz
questions that were factual (knowledge and comprehension level) versus those that involved
application.
General discussion
There has been little research on the types of study sessions that would motivate attendance by
college students or that would produce beneficial outcomes on their performance. Aamodt
(1982b) compared study sessions involving organization and review of material plus the
chance to ask questions with study sessions involving questions and answers only. Only 8%
of the students in the Aamodt investigation attended the QA study session and 52% did not
attend either type of study session. In contrast, the majority of students in the current two
studies attended QA study sessions (M = 65% and 64%, respectively) and comparatively
few students failed to attend study sessions (32% and 38%, respectively).
There are several factors that might account for these differences. First undergraduate
students (Aamodt’s studies) in general may not be as motivated as most graduate students
(current study), and they may therefore be less likely to avail themselves of opportunities
to enhance their performance. Second, the Aamodt (1982b) study investigated attendance at
only a single point in time (immediately preceding the final examination). The data may not
have been representative of attendance had there been more opportunities to attend study
sessions. In the current investigations, study sessions were held weekly. This also allowed
students to sample the study sessions (in both formats) and to experience the consequences
of attending or not attending. These histories may have affected their subsequent attendance.
Differences between the results of the Aamodt (1982b) and the current studies suggest the
importance of considering motivating operations (Michael, 1993). Specifically, the motiva-
tion for attending supplemental study sessions must be considered in the context of aspects
of course delivery that would make participation in certain types of study sessions reinforc-
ing. In the current studies, class lectures were delivered using PowerPoint slides that stated
the objectives for the class session and addressed each of the objectives sequentially with
definitions, explanations, examples, and so on. Students used guided notes during the lecture
(downloaded from the course website), which contained blank spaces for writing key words
or phrases shown in the lecture slides (see Neef, McCord, Ferreri, 2006). Thus, students
already had available a mechanism for organization of the material, similar to the function
that the organizing study session served in the Aamodt (1982b) study. Students in the current
investigation who reported that they relied on self-study strategies for quiz preparation may
have encountered material that evoked questions. These students, therefore, may have been
more motivated by the opportunity to have concepts further clarified, which was served by
attendance at the QA study sessions.
Springer

14. 248 J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249
Two additional functions of study sessions may be to promote fluency with factual
information (e.g., definitions, formulae, classes of concepts), and self-assessment of the
extent to which responses to hypothetical questions are accurate (match criterion for a
correct response). These functions were served by the game format in the current studies,
which also were well attended. Although the scheduling of sessions immediately before class
sessions may have encouraged attendance because of convenience, quiz performance might
be enhanced by arranging more time to independently re-examine material in response to
incorrect game answers before taking quizzes.
The motivating operations that can affect study session attendance suggest possible lim-
itations to interpretation and generality of findings in this area of research. Attendance and
outcomes can be expected to differ depending not only on the nature of the study sessions,
but on the characteristics of the students and of the course that study sessions supplement.
For example, outcomes of study sessions might be most apparent with courses that are not
optimally designed for learning, whereas outcomes for courses whose features maximize
performance might be obscured by ceiling effects.
Participation in, and preference for different types of study sessions ultimately is likely
to be affected by the extent to which participation increases the probability or magnitude
of reinforcement in the form of test performance and grades. Indeed, the justification for
investing time in conducting or attending study sessions is the extent to which they enhance
students’ understanding of the material, as reflected by performance measures. Motivating
study session attendance, therefore, may both affect and be affected by test performance.
Although Aamodt (1982a, 1982b) reported higher test scores on average for students who
attended a study session relative to those who did not attend, we found minimal, if any,
differences in overall mean quiz scores for participating and nonparticipating students. As
previously mentioned, it is difficult to interpret these results given possible differences
between students with respect to their existing study skills and the absence of intra-subject
comparisons. In future research, within-subject comparisons with low performing students
might be especially important considering Aamodt’s finding that students who scored low on
assessment of academic ability (and who were therefore most in need of assistance) profited
least from the study session.
Future research, in addition, might control for differences in course material and content
across successive weeks of the course, which most likely contributed to variability in quiz
scores in the current investigation. The inter-session and inter-section variability in attendance
for both types of study sessions may have been a function of the idiosyncratic needs of the
individual students for any given unit. Preferences, also, may be idiosyncratic and influenced
by different characteristics of the two types of study sessions. Gibson (1991) reported
anecdotally that college students found study sessions based on the game show “Jeopardy”
to be entertaining. However, games are associated with social contingencies (e.g., those
accompanying public responses to questions or responses that affect one’s team mates’
chances of “winning”), and a few students in the current studies reported disliking games
which involved being “put on the spot.” Future research might examine systematically the
relative benefits of different types of games, including those that can be performed alone or
that are not competitive.
Finally, although the current studies showed considerable improvement in students’ mean
quiz scores from baseline, there was room for further improvement in post study session
performance (similar to Aamodt’s studies). This supports a need for continued research on
the types of study sessions that will lead to optimal performance and assist college students
in deriving the full benefits of what their courses have to offer.
Springer

15. J Behav Educ (2007) 16:235–249 249
Acknowledgements We thank Keith Van Norman at VespaGraphics.com and Shu-Wai Chow at
www.shuchow.com for designing and supporting the use of the Behavioral Jeopardy PowerPoint r
tem-
plates. We also thank William Heward, Priscilla Brame, and Sara Bicard for the Who Wants to be a Behavioral
Millionaire PowerPoint r
template.
References
Aamodt, M. G. (1982a). The effect of the study session on test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 9,
118–120.
Aamodt, M. G. (1982b). A closer look at the study session. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 234–235.
Gibson, B. (1991). Research methods jeopardy: A tool for involving students and organizing the study session.
Teaching of Psychology, 18, 176–177.
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191–206.
Neef, N. A., McCord, B. F., Ferreri, S. J. (2006). Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during
lectures on college students’ quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123–130.
Springer