ExploringCramming PublishedDec302008

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240282744
Exploring Cramming
Article in Journal of Marketing Education · May 2008

DOI: 10.1177/0273475308321819
CITATIONS READS
24 8,606
2 authors:
Shelby H. Mcintyre J. Michael Munson

Santa Clara University 48 PUBLICATIONS 1,018 CITATIONS
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,676 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Motivation for User Generated Content (UGC) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Shelby H. Mcintyre on 22 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Marketing Education
http://jmd.sagepub.com
Exploring Cramming: Student Behaviors, Beliefs, and Learning Retention in the Principles of Marketing
Course
Shelby H. McIntyre and J. Michael Munson
Journal of Marketing Education 2008; 30; 226 originally published online Jul 30, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0273475308321819
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/226
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Marketing Educators Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Marketing Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/3/226
Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Journal of Marketing Education
Volume 30 Number 3
December 2008 226-243
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0273475308321819
Exploring Cramming http://jmd.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Student Behaviors, Beliefs, and Learning

Retention in the Principles of Marketing Course
Shelby H. McIntyre
J. Michael Munson
Santa Clara University, California
Cramming for finals is common on college campuses, and many students seem to cram for their final in the Principles of
Marketing course. This article addresses the question of defining and measuring a “cramming study strategy.” Scales are devel-
oped to assess (a) cramming for courses in general and (b) cramming specifically in the Principles of Marketing course relative to
two other study strategies. Several research questions about cramming are addressed, including (a) How widespread is the prac-
tice? (b) How effective do students perceive it to be? (c) How effective is it actually, both in the short and long term, for students’
GPA and grade in the Principles of Marketing course? and (d) Is there a deterioration in retention, as measured by a master test,
of content learned in the Principles course from using more of a cramming study strategy? Implications are discussed, particularly
in light of various pedagogical approaches to combating learning decay, and areas for future research are suggested.
Keywords: cramming; study strategies; cramming scales; learning decay
A recent newspaper article subtitled “Some Claim That

Cramming Works for Midterms, Finals” noted that
“pulling all-nighters is a routine practice” in college
From our own observation, one of the hallmarks of col-
lege life is cramming for finals. Some students tend to put
off studying until the end of the term and only get serious
(Maitre, 2006). That article quotes Junior Mai Tran, a 20- about studying as the final exam approaches. Cramming as
year-old at the University of California, Berkeley, who “has a study strategy may be adopted by students for many rea-
pulled all-nighters for years and swears it works for her.” sons: because the student is busy, overloaded with work,
The day before a test she’ll start studying as soon as she sports, or other aspects of campus life; or simply because of
gets up and keep going until 5 or 6 the next morning. Then procrastination (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Cramming may
it’s off to the exam. “I’ve been able to get good grades also be adopted if the student believes that studying closer
doing all-nighters,” said Tran. The article goes on to suggest to the test date will result in a good score with minimal total
that students fall into two study-habit categories, “the all- time expended.
night crammers and the methodical planners.” It also states Recently a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the
that students in each category pass and fail in about equal assessment of student learning by the federal government
measure. Intuition would suggest that cramming may work (Golden, 2006), state legislators, accrediting bodies
to some degree for immediate results on a particular test but (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
that the retention from such a study strategy would be short- [AACSB], 2000), businesses (Kelly & Gaedeke, 1990;
lived compared to a more methodical approach. McDaniel & White, 1993; McMartin, 1999), and university
The psychological and educational research literature administrators (Marklein, 2006; Martinez, 1995; Allen,
casts against cramming. However, some students think that 2004a, 2004b). A parallel development is the growing
it works. The key difference in these two perspectives (that recognition of the importance of faculty scholarship around
cramming works or does not work) revolves around the teaching and learning (Cross, 1996). In light of this interest,
issue of learning retention over the short term and long term. we decided to examine the phenomenon of student study
It is the implied interaction between cramming and learning strategies (SSs) and cramming in greater detail.
decay that is the key issue we intend to study here, as it Our interest in SSs is in conjunction with a comprehen-
relates specifically to the Principles of Marketing course. sive assessment program being initiated for our university’s
226 Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

McIntyre, Munson / Exploring Cramming 227
Principles of Marketing course. In designing that assess- spans, and so on are involved when compared to learning
ment, we became particularly concerned that the continual simple pairings of nonsense words and adjectives. To this
use of embedded multiple-choice “master tests” might lead point, the literature indicates numerous key factors that
to students anticipating this style of test, which could cause affect student learning, including course content (Rea &
them to cram more for the Principles course. If so, what Modigliani, 1985); the type of testing, such as true-false,
effect might that cramming have on short-term and long- multiple-choice, essay, or a standardized test-bank (e.g.,
term learning? Bacon, 2003; Kentler, Hampton, & Maftin, 1994); and the
instructional approach, such as lecture versus application-
oriented exercises or student teams (e.g., McCorkle et. al.,
Literature Review 1999; Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997).
The above discussion suggests several research questions
One overwhelming point drawn from research about study (RQs), including RQ1: How widespread is the use of cram-
strategy is that distributing a given amount of study time over ming among students? RQ2: How do students perceive the
several sessions generally leads to better memory of the effectiveness of cramming? RQ3: How effective is cramming
information than a massed (or single) study session for the in the short run in terms of students’ course grades? And par-
same time (e.g., Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Bloom & Shuell, ticularly RQ4: How effective is cramming in the long run in
1981; Schmidt, 1983; Willingham, 2002). In the learning lit- terms of students’ learning retention? Each question is dis-
erature, this phenomenon is called the “spacing effect.” cussed below in light of relevant literature.
Support for the spacing effect has endured remarkably
well over more than 100 years of scrutiny (from RQ1: How Widespread
Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964, to a recent meta-analysis by
Is the Use of Cramming?
Donovan and Radosevich, 1999). A representative study
from this literature is that of Keppel (1967), who had col- What is the prevalence of cramming as an SS by college
lege students learn a sequence of pairing of nonsense sylla- students? Is it the exception or the rule? Can clear groups
bles and adjectives (e.g., “lum”—happy). All subjects be identified that use or do not use cramming? The answer,
studied the list eight times, but for half of the subjects, all of course, depends to some degree on how “cramming” is
eight trials occurred on the same day (massed practice); the defined and operationalized as well as what sample is
other subjects studied the list two times, morning and after- drawn. R. Sommer (1968, p. 105) generated an early defin-
noon, on each of four successive days (distributed practice). ition of cramming as “a period of neglect of study followed
Keppel tested memory of the list with a delay in testing of by a concentrated burst of studying immediately before an
24 hours after the final study session and found that the exam.” Vacha and McBride (1993) assessed cramming at
massed-study mean was 5.9 words recalled, whereas it was Gonzaga University that was measured by a diary report
somewhat less for the distributed-study mean, which was collected at the end of each week during the term. They
5.5. However, the situation radically reversed with a delay operationalized cramming as “students who largely
in testing of 1 week, when the massed-study mean was only neglected studying for three or more weeks” and then exer-
2.1 words recalled and much lower than the distributed- cised a “burst of study before the tests” (p. 5). By this def-
study mean of 5.0. Thus, the results clearly show that inition, they found that 23.5% of the students were
massed practice does fairly well (even better in this cramming. Michaels and Miethe (1989) surveyed 676
instance) if the test is the next day; however, there is con- undergraduate students at a large mid-Atlantic university
siderably more relative drop-off if the test is a week later. using a “questionnaire on study habits.” They describe the
Massed practice is obviously very similar to what is com- phenomenon in a relatively simple way, as “a binary vari-
monly called “cramming.” Keppel’s results make it look as able indicating that the student studied throughout the term
though a cramming SS might enable a student to remember [noncramming] rather than just cramming before exams”
things for a test the next day, although not for the long haul. (p. 5) and found that by this definition 49% of the students
But do business school students perceive that there is a were “noncrammers” and therefore, by inference, 51% of
spacing effect, and if so, does it affect their study strategy the students were crammers. In another survey, when Illinois
in terms of actual behavior? Additionally, is the spacing- State University residence-hall students were asked whether
effect finding generalizable to college courses that involve they “could do all right without studying,” 26% of them
homework assignments, midterms, class sessions, study “admitted to not studying during a normal academic week”
groups, presentations, and so on? Also, a key goal of our (Rau & Durand, 2000, pp. 21-22). This figure is corrobo-
effort is to quantify the magnitude of any such memory/for- rated by a study at Rutgers University in which 25% of the
getting effects in terms of their interaction with spacing for students reported that they “hardly studied at all on a day-to-
the Principles of Marketing course, where radically differ- day basis, but relied on cramming before exams” (Moffat,
ent materials, instruction methods, study conditions, time 1989).

228 Journal of Marketing Education
Taraban, Maki, and Rynearson (1999) assessed student is primarily based on performance on multiple choice tests
study patterns at Texas Tech University, looking at both tradi- or other examinations calling for memorization” (p. 8). And
tional lecture-test courses as well as courses delivered over the in fact, they found that “students in classes in which at least
World Wide Web. They used diaries as well as objective 40% of the grade was based on performance on papers or
computer-based records of time students spent accessing ‘take-home’ exams were more [italics added] likely to cram”
course materials; they found that “in all cases, the students (p. 8). Thus, in light of the opposing findings from these two
recorded concentrating their study just before an exam, studies, it appears warranted to investigate further the possi-
reported that other students did likewise, and expressed the bility that multiple-choice exams might induce students to
belief that such behaviors were ideal” (p. 268). Overall, these take more of a cramming approach to studying.
authors found that “students . . . believe that massed practice Some researchers claim that academic procrastination
cramming was an ideal distribution of study time, and behave and cramming are part of an adaptive study and perfor-
consistently with those cognitions” (p. 268). In a project at the mance strategy (e.g., Crewe, 1969; W. G. Sommer, 1990),
University of Michigan, Schuman, Walsh, Olson, and whereas others argue that academic crammers suffer from a
Etheridge (2001) asked whether students thought different lack of both motivation and self-regulation (Tuckman,
study habits were “useful,” “somewhat useful,” or “not useful” 1991). As R. Sommer (1968) put it, cramming is “a tech-
to get good grades, and 38% of the students thought that cram- nique as widely condemned by educators as it is widely
ming was useful. So, in summary, it seems that cramming gen- used by students” (p. 104).
erally describes the study strategy of more than 25% of the
students by almost any general definition of the phenomenon. RQ3: How Effective Is
In a multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis for a ran- Cramming in the Short Run?
dom sample of 100 students at Illinois State University, Rau
and Durand (2000) created a plot in two dimensions: “study Schuman et al. (2001) found that cramming had no
ethic” and “study pattern.” They identified one group of effect on grades as measured either by GPA or by course
students constituting 28% of the whole, who form a very grade in a general chemistry class. R. Sommer (1968)
clear cluster and “provide a stark contrast” to the other noted, “Most of the advice against cramming ignores the
students. “Not one of the . . . students in this group stud- large number of empirical investigations supporting the
ied either during the week or on week-ends” and “39% of utility of recency in learning in favor of the literature con-
them relied primarily on cramming, while another 54% said cerning the superiority of spaced over massed practice”
they relied on cramming and occasional study” (p. 27). This (p. 104). The advice against cramming ignores the evidence
supports the idea that there are two groups, those who cram “that even very successful students routinely cram”
and those who are relatively more methodical. (R. Sommer, 1968, p. 104). Also, cramming offers substan-
tial benefits for students, including the fact that it can (a)
RQ2: How Do Students Perceive free up a student’s time for other activities (including study-
ing for other courses); (b) help relieve the monotony of
the Effectiveness of Cramming? studying by concentrating the activity in as short of a period
A particular interest to us is whether students perceive as possible; (c) help students catch up when behind; (d)
cramming to be more effective when anticipating stimulate students to study difficult material with large
multiple-choice exams. In other words, does the use of blocks of concentrated time; (e) allow rebellion from the
multiple-choice tests perhaps cause students to take a cram- enforced discipline and control of their teachers; and (f)
ming approach? This seems to be an especially relevant still achieve good grades (R. Sommer, 1968; W. G.
question given the authors’ perceptions of the pervasive use Sommer, 1990). With regard to the point about the monot-
of multiple-choice tests in our own Principles of Marketing ony of studying, research using a laboratory simulation of
course, as well as nationally. In a very small-scale study of cramming found the possibility that, for some students,
a half dozen students, R. Sommer (1968) stated that several cramming can increase the mental “flow” state1 during
students “reported cramming was most effective for classes study (Brinthaupt & Shin, 2001). It is suggested that this
that involved extensive use of multiple choice exams and happens because procrastination and then cramming, for
tested on memorization, and was least helpful where indi- these students, achieves a better balance between the ten-
vidual thought, creativity and understanding of general prin- sion of boredom (where skills exceed the challenge of daily
ciples was called for” (p. 105). This seems intuitively study) or anxiety (where the challenge exceeds the skills of
plausible as stated, but notice that the statement does not too much to study in too short a time). This would be the
focus exclusively on multiple-choice exams. On the other case for students who prefer to cram and possibly are prac-
hand, Vacha and McBride (1993), in a larger empirical study ticed at it, as opposed to those who do it out of necessity.
of 166 students, stated that “our data do not support the Moreover, Vacha and McBride (1993) reported that
hypothesis that students are more likely to cram if evaluation “most inexperienced college students heed the advice of

‘experts’ and avoid cramming.” However, “by the time they which in turn stems from poor time management skills and
are seniors, many appear to have discovered that cramming often leads to stress. He warned students that it is very
is an effective approach” (p. 9), with more than one third of important to “stay away from procrastinating. . . . It is the
the juniors and seniors falling into the cramming category. student’s worst enemy” (quoted in Selyukh, 2007, p. 2). He
One cause of cramming is procrastination, which was further observed that can be problematic: “Generally, cram-
found to be widespread and affects 50% to 95% of under- ming puts information in the short-term storage area of the
graduate students (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Ackerman brain, whereas long-term studying places it in the long-term
and Gross (2005) suggested that “instructors may be able to memory. The latter makes information easier to remember
modify assignments and class formats to decrease procrasti- and use for analysis or application” (quoted in Selyukh,
nation and improve performance and learning.” They identi- 2007, p. 2).
fied several task characteristics expected to influence the The measure of long-run learning that we use in this
degree of procrastination, including “task importance, task research is the score on a “Master Test” (MT) designed to
appeal, and task difficulty” (p. 6). measure comprehension and retention of material from the
In another study of student procrastination, Pychyl, Principles of Marketing course. Is this MT measure of
Morin, and Salmon (2000) found “there was no significant actual performance behavior related to the SSs that students
difference in exam performance between those students report having used? We also wondered if their SS in the
scoring high versus low on procrastination, despite the Principles course is related to their typical SS, that is, the
lower time studied and later onset of studying” (p. 147). one used for most of their courses. Most important, what is
Vacha and McBride (1993) found “there is no support for the relative decay rate in learning that results from higher
the hypothesis that students who cram do less well than levels of cramming?
those who do not” (p. 7). In fact, they reported that “cram-
mers’ grades were slightly higher than all but the zealous
students who studied large amounts just before the test and Method
during the other weeks as well” (p. 7). Others have likewise
found no relationship between procrastination and exam In this section, we discuss our methodology and then
scores (Ferrari, 1992; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). explore the evidence from administering a survey question-
However, Tice and Baumeister (1997) reported “procrasti- naire about different SSs to 160 students in nine upper-divi-
nators received lower grades than non-procrastinators on . . . sion marketing courses. In these courses, all of the students
exams” (p. 457). had previously taken the Principles of Marketing course (a
The only very strong evidence we have found against prerequisite) somewhere between 2 and 11 quarters earlier.
cramming caused by procrastination, in terms of grades, This allowed us to relate the SS survey results from these
comes from the mental health area, where Ferrari, Johnson, same nine classes to an MT also administered to measure
and McCown (1995) reported that students being treated comprehension and retention of material from the
clinically for conditions related to procrastination “have Principles of Marketing course. The MT was administered
GPA ratings from –.38 SD below the mean college GPA for in all nine courses at the end of the quarter.
students voluntarily seeking treatment to –.52 SD for Several steps where taken to determine the effect on
students who are referred by others for treatment” (p. 190). learning and retention when students adopt different SSs
for the Principles of Marketing course and, as a contrast, for
courses in general.
RQ4: How Effective Is
Cramming in the Long Run?
Step 1: Developing the Master Test
A principal objective in this research is to determine not
only the short-run effect of cramming on learning and To assess the effects of different student SSs on subse-
grades but also the long-run effect on learning retention. We quent variables of interest, an MT was developed. On the
anticipate that there should be an inverse relationship basis of considerable prior learning and assessment research,
between cramming and learning retention. Support for this it was decided that the test format would use multiple-choice
reasoning is grounded in the many studies mentioned in the questions.2 The primary goals of the test development were
literature review above, including those on the spacing effect to create a test that would assess the major content areas of
(Bahrick and Phelps, 1987; Schmidt, 1983; Willingham, the Principles of Marketing course as specified in the
2002), the classic studies of Ebbinghaus (1885/1964) and course’s key learning objectives. Recent mandates by the
Keppel (1967), plus the more recent work of Bacon and AACSB regarding the necessity for all departments within a
Stewart (2006). John Goldrich, a mental health practitioner business school to develop more systematic course assess-
of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, contended that ment procedures were, in part, driving the MT development.
much of student cramming is the result of procrastination, Hence, work had been done previously by the Marketing

Department to identify and specify these key learning objec- Students spent 15 minutes writing, in most cases, several
tives, which then served as guidance in construction of the pages as an answer. Then 5 other student assistants grouped
MT. The key learning objectives were based on input from those responses regarding study strategies into similarity
the entire department faculty—both full-time and adjunct— piles and also rated them on their “degree of cramming”
and evolved over several meetings. Also, a subcommittee of without explaining what that might mean. After studying
all instructors who taught the Principles course participated these results, three SSs emerged and are defined as follows:
in actual test development. This procedure resulted in an ini-
tial test of 90 multiple-choice questions that were subse- Study Strategy 1: Extreme Cramming
quently culled to 60, after the elimination of questions judged
to be ambiguous, confusing, tricky, tangential to the primary This SS means the student normally does not keep up
learning objectives, or similar to other questions. All ques- with the assigned course materials and does not read them
tions retained for the MT demonstrated a high degree of when they are assigned by the instructor. Rather, the student
interrater reliability, with at least 5 of 6 judges (and most fre- puts off doing the course reading until shortly before the
quently all 6) agreeing that a question was appropriately tar- exam (midterm or final). Cramming therefore means the
geted to assess a specific learning objective. On this MT, the student is reading a great deal of assigned course materials
Cronbach’s alpha was .903 across 898 individual tests. Each for the first time right before the exam—say the day or so
item on the MT had 5 alternatives, so the strictly guessing before, and perhaps even “pulling an all-nighter” right
rate would be .20, or 20%. before the exam.
During the fall quarter of 2006, the pretest mean on the
MT was .426 (e.g., students got 42.6% of the 60 questions Study Strategy 2: Keeping Current and
correct on the first day of the Principles course) with a stan- Reviewing for Exams All Quarter
dard deviation of .078. The test was not preannounced; This SS means the student usually reads the assigned
thus, students could not prepare for it in any way. They course materials when the instructor asks and generally
were told that the test results would not count toward their “keeps up” with the course readings as the instructor
grade; hence, some people might consider their scores to expects. Additionally, the student usually tries to “review
reflect lower motivation levels. However, students were told the course materials on a fairly regular basis,” even in
that their individual performance was very important to advance of any announced exams. In other words, the
both the Marketing Department’s and Business School’s student anticipates the exams are coming up and begins to
curriculum planning and assessment efforts. Students were review (study) materials that she or he thinks may be cov-
encouraged to do their best, and there is no indication that ered on the exam. This review of possible exam materials is
they did not take the test seriously. The end-of-course mean undertaken by the student “well in advance of the exam
was .756 with a standard deviation of .111, and in this situ- date” and is done “on a fairly regular basis.” It is a regular
ation there was preparation and the score did count into the and methodical process.
student’s grade. It should also be noted that the conditions
that existed when the MT was administered to the students Study Strategy 3: Keeping Current and
at the start of their Principles course were the same condi- Cramming a Day or So Before the Exam
tions that existed when the MT was given in the nine
advanced courses, as will be discussed subsequently, so all This SS is somewhat like Study Strategy 2 in that the
results are comparable in terms of the no-preannouncement student does “regularly read and keep up with the assigned
and no-effect-on-grade condition. course material” as given by the instructor. However, it is
different from Study Strategy 2 in the following way. In
Study Strategy 3, the student concentrates her or his efforts
Step 2: Defining Various Study Strategies
to prepare for the exam “to just a day or so before the
As noted, R. Sommer (1968) defined cramming as “a exam,” rather than reviewing for the exam at “fairly regular
period of neglect of study followed by a concentrated burst intervals over the whole quarter” (as in Study Strategy 2).
of studying immediately before an exam.” We further felt
that cramming thus implies that at least some of the mater- Step 3: Determining Beliefs
ial being studied is new rather than review. It also seemed About Various Study Strategies and
that extreme cramming was somewhat associated with
“pulling an all-nighter.” To better grasp different study
Developing Study Strategy Scales
strategies, we had 45 undergraduate students in an A written survey questionnaire, termed the Study
advanced marketing class answer an open-ended question: Strategy Survey, was the primary data collection instru-
“Please describe your typical study strategy for a course.” ment. Questionnaire construction was driven by the four

primary RQs (RQ1-RQ4) previously discussed. It con- instrument. The dimensionality of the items describing the
tained 49 Likert items. Of these, 27 items (Q1-Q27) various SSs was examined with exploratory factor analysis.
assessed “questions about each defined study strategy.” The The analysis found a three-factor model by principal com-
same set of nine questions (Q1-Q9) were repeated follow- ponents extraction. The varimax-rotated factor loadings
ing the detailed description of each of the three respective explain 55% of the variance. Appendix B shows all factor
SSs. Next, 9 items assessed more general “opinions about loadings greater than .40 on these factors. It appears that
study strategies” (Q28-Q36). Seven items focused on Factor 1 is the cramming factor because most of the SS1
“What determines the study strategy you use?” (Q37-Q43); (Extreme Cramming) questions load positively on it, with
and 6 items assessed “How did you study in the Principles one SS3 question (Q19) loading negatively on it as might be
of Marketing course?” (Q44-Q49). These latter items form expected. Factor 2 captures much of SS3 (Keeping Current
the basis for developing a scale to index cramming specifi- and Cramming a Day or So Before the Exam). Factor 3
cally in the Principles course. This resulting scale score is a seems to identify SS2 (Keeping Current and Reviewing for
key variable required to test the effects regarding learning Exams All Quarter), although there is some cross-loading
decay. The complete survey questionnaire is shown in between SS2 and SS3, with these two SSs being somewhat
Appendix A. similar to one another but both very different from SS1.
More specifically, to determine to what degree a student Factor 3 seems to reflect the types of study behaviors Vacha
uses a cramming SS, the Study Strategy Survey reflects two and McBride (1993) attributed to those “zealous students”
fairly different approaches. The first approach asked students who studied large amounts just before the test and during
about their agreement (on a 7-point scale from disagree the other weeks as well.
strongly to agree strongly) with a number of statements The next two cramming scales were developed based on
about each one of the three SSs defined in Step 2 above. insights received from the comments of the previously men-
This allowed us to determine the following: whether that SS tioned sample of 45 students regarding their personal study
is a good description of how the student studies for most col- strategies, as well as our a priori judgment. Scale items were
lege courses, whether students believed the SS would earn a assessed by item-to-total correlations. The scales appeared
“good final course grade,” if the SS was used in the adequate, with item-to-total correlations ranging from a low
Principles of Marketing course, if the students felt they of .62 to a high of .87 (see last row in Table 1) for the six-
would have gotten a good course grade in the Principles item General Cramming Scale (GCS: Most Courses) and
course had this SS been used, if they would be able to retain from a low of .56 to a high of .83 (see last row in Table 2)
the material 6 months or 1 year after completing the course, for the four-item Specific Cramming Scale in the Principles
and whether the SS would be good for a “quantitative-type of Marketing Course (SCS: Principles). The respective
course” as well as a “qualitative-type course.” (See Cronbach’s alphas for each scale were as follows: GCS:
Appendix A for the list of these questions for each SS along Most Courses (alpha = .94); SCS: Principles (alpha = .91).
with the relevant means and standard deviations.) The same Cronbach’s alpha is an indicator of the overall scale reliabil-
set of questions was thus repeated directly beneath the ity of a measure; values greater than .70 are generally con-
description of each of the three respective SSs. sidered acceptable in most social science situations (see
As a second approach, because we did not want to be con- Nunnally & Bernstein, 1967/1994, p. 265). These two scales
fined to only the three defined SS descriptions, there was then form the basis for some of the analysis to follow.
another set of nine questions on “opinions about study strate-
gies” used to determine student opinions about aspects of
study related to cramming in general (see Q28-Q36 in Results
Appendix A). Also, a 7-question battery on “What determines
the study strategy you use?” addressed the degree to which Key findings for each of the RQs are discussed below in
the SS used depended on different factors such as, “How dif- turn.
ficult the course is expected to be,” “whether it’s a required
course in my major,” “whether it’s a quantitative or qualitative
RQ1: How Widespread
course,” and “what final course grade could be earned” (see
Q37-Q43 in Appendix A). Finally, there was a similar set of Is the Use of Cramming?
questions specifically about the Principles of Marketing We assessed the students’ use of cramming as an SS for
course, for example, “How did you study in the Principles of both “most of my college courses” and “in the Principles
Marketing course?” (see Q44-Q49 in Appendix A). course.” Regarding the former, based on the distribution of
To assess the Study Strategy Survey, we administered it students’ agreement that “SS1 (i.e., Cramming) is how I
to the same 160 students who took the MT. These were dif- study for most of my college courses” (see Figure 1), it is
ferent students than the original 45 used in developing the clear that students are not neutral about this question. Based

Table 1
General Cramming Scale: Most Courses (GCS: Most Courses)
Q1 Q2 Q28 Q29 Q31 Q35
Q1 SS1 Is how I study most of the time 1

Q2 SS1 Earns good course grades if I use .71 1
Q28 For me it is best to study just before tests .39 .47 1
Q29 Often I get behind so reading for first time .70 .46 .38 1
Q31 I cram and study little otherwise .83 .58 .46 .72 1
Q35 I like to stay up late before test .42 .36 .25 .29 .44 1
Summative score .87 .79 .65 .74 .85 .62
Note: SS1 = Study Strategy 1 (extreme cramming). Entries are interitem correlations, except for the last row, where they are item-to-total
correlations.
Table 2
Specific Cramming Scale (SCS: Principles of Marketing) in the Principles of Marketing Course
Q44 Q45 Q46 Q48
Q44 Studied only before tests 1

Q45 Would advise studying right before tests .60 1
Q46 Was reading some material just before tests .59 .46 1
Q48 Stayed up really late for the final .22 .00 .34 1
Summative score .80 .70 .83 .56
Note: Entries are interitem correlations, except for the last row, where they are item-to-total correlations.
on a chi-square test showing that the distribution of These findings are in the same direction as those of Vacha
responses across the agreement scale is uniformly distrib- and McBride (1993) and counter to the speculation of R.
uted, we reject uniformity and find that the visually intu- Sommer (1968). Also, on Q5 (“SS1 would work better for
itive bimodal nature of this distribution is significantly a multiple-choice exam than for an essay-question exam”),
different from this null χ2(6, n = 160) = 27.86, p < .001, a the mean of 4.13 versus the neutral point value at 4.00 is not
finding that supports that there are two camps, basically the significant, t(159) = 0.875, p = .380. These are key results
crammers and the methodical students. Less than 5% of the because if students felt strongly that a cramming approach
students responded at the neutral point on this question. If was better when dealing with multiple-choice tests, then the
social desirability is operating in how students are likely to use of such tests for assessment purposes might have a neg-
respond to their “agreement with cramming” as an SS, one ative unintended consequence.
would expect it to reduce their agreement with cramming. With regard to earning good grades from different SSs,
If this is the case, it is then conservative to say that more we considered students’ thoughts about SS1, the cramming
than 45% of the students report themselves to be on the SS, first in isolation and then in relative terms (e.g., SS1 vs.
“agree” side of the scale. Similarly, results for the use of SS2 and SS1 vs. SS3). On Q2, “If I use SS1, I will get good
cramming “in the Principles course” also follows a similar final course grades in MOST of my classes,” students are
bimodal distribution about the neutral point χ2(6, n = 160) = significantly on the negative side of the scale from the neu-
18.68, p = .005, with approximately 48% on the “agree” tral value for SS1, t(159) = –2.639, p = .009; and similarly
side of the scale. on Q4, “If I had used SS1, I would have gotten a good final
course grade,” t(159) = –3.541, p < .001. Students also
RQ2: How Do Students express very negative reactions to Q6, “If I use SS1, I will
still be able to remember most of the material 6 months
Perceive the Use of Cramming? after the course,” t(159) = –16.126, p < .001; and Q7 (i.e.,
There is mild but highly significant disagreement “1 year after the course”), t(159) = –23.647, p < .001.
appearing on Q34 (“I think that when multiple choice tests Comparing the results of these same questions for SS1
are used, the best strategy is to cram for the tests”). On this versus SS2 and SS3 in a series of paired-samples t tests, we
question, the mean of 3.54 is in the “disagree” direction find the following. Students disfavor SS1 and significantly
from the neutral answer of 4.00, t(159) = –3.56, p < .001.3 favor SS2 and SS3 for most courses, for example, Q2 versus

Figure 1 RQ3: How Effective Is

Frequency Distribution of Agreement Cramming in the Short Run?
With Cramming (SS1)
With regard to the relationships between SSs and each of
two actual performance measures, GPA4 and the Principles
40
of Marketing course grade, the results are somewhat mixed.
35 We find a relationship between the SS typically used and
the student’s GPA. It seems agreement with the use of a
Number of Respondents
30
cramming SS “for most of my courses” (Q1) is highly asso-
25
ciated with a lower GPA. Those who disagree with cram-
20 ming the most have a higher GPA, and those who agree that
15
they cram have a lower GPA. Moreover, there is a clear
relationship such that the stronger the agreement, the lower
10 the GPA across the spectrum of agree-disagree categories.
5 A regression-based slope test shows a negative slope
between GPA and use of a cramming study strategy, with a
0
slope of –.0517, t(155) = –3.041, p = .001, and R2 = .793.
gly
ely
tly
al
tly
ely
gly
utr
gh
gh
on
rat
rat
on
For the Principles of Marketing course grade, we con-

Ne
Sli
Sli
Str
Str
de
de
clude that the course grade is not significantly related to the

ree
ree
Mo
Mo
ree
ree
ag
Ag
ree
ree
ag
Ag
degree of cramming reportedly used in the course. Certainly

Dis
Dis
ag
Ag
the relationship is less dramatic and consistent across the

Dis
Q1 Q3
scale than it is for GPA, and it has a smaller slope coefficient
of –.040, t(155) = –1.021, p = .307, and R2 = .159.
Because students generally agree with the statement, “It
Note: SS1 = study strategy 1; Q1 = SS1 (cramming) is how I study for pays off more for me to study mostly just before tests,” we
most of my college courses. Q3 = SS1 (cramming) is how I studied for
the Principles of Marketing Course. N = 160. Students fall into two
conclude that they generally agree that cramming works.
camps, those who agree that they cram and those who do not. Few The mean of 4.51 (Appendix A, Q28) is significantly above
students are neutral on this question. Interpretation: Based on this result, the neutral point at 4.0, t(159) = 3.906, p < .001. In terms of
we reject that the distribution of cramming is uniformly distributed for describing their own personal behavior, students again
both “how I study for most of my college courses,” χ2(6, n = 160) = seem to fall into two camps: those who claim they get
27.86, p < .001; as well as “how I studied in the Principles course,” χ2(6, behind and are reading some fresh material as they go into
n = 160) = 18.68, p < .005. The data better support the perspective that studying for the final exam and those who claim to keep up.
there are two camps, those who cram and those who do not.
This is consistent with the findings about the distribution of
cramming reported by students. However, regarding per-
Q11, t(158) = –13.740, p < .001; and Q2 versus Q20, t(159) = ceptions of what other students are doing, there is no
–13.270, p < .001, respectively. Similarly, for earning a good bimodality. Students generally agree with the statement that
grade in the Principles course, students also disfavor SS1 rel- “most students cram for tests, but otherwise study little.”
ative to SS2 (e.g., Q4 vs. Q13), t(159) = –12.586, p < .001; The mean = 4.95 (Appendix A, Q30) is significantly above
and disfavor SS1 relative to SS3 (e.g., Q4 vs. Q22), t(159) = the neutral point at 4.0, t(159) = 8.696, p < .001.
–13.835, p < .001.
On a relative basis (e.g., comparing SS1 to SS2 and SS1 to RQ4: How Effective Is
SS3), the most stark of all contrasts leads us to reject the idea
that cramming is perceived to result in remembering course
Cramming in the Long Run?
material 6 months later using SS1 versus SS2 (e.g., Q6 vs. Finally we come to the issue of how the MT score is
Q15), t(159) = –24.630, p < .001; or using SS1 versus SS3 influenced by the Principles of Marketing course grade, the
(e.g., Q6 vs. Q24), t(159) = –20.447, p < .001. Not surpris- degree of cramming reportedly used in the course, and the
ingly, students also dramatically disagree that SS1 would time delay since the course was taken (which varied across
result in retention 1 year later for SS1 versus SS2 (e.g., Q7 vs. students from 10 to 140 weeks ago). This analysis is funda-
Q16), t(159) = –26.456, p < .001; and for SS1 versus SS3 mentally multivariate so a regression model is appropriate,
(e.g., Q7 vs. Q25), t(159) = –21.381, p < .001. This certainly with the MT score as the dependent variable. The indepen-
is in keeping with the conventional wisdom about cramming dent variables are the student’s Principles course grade
(e.g., Maitre, 2006) as well as published research on the translated to a percentage score (e.g., B+ = 3.7 or 3.7/4.0 =
topic, so the students appear to be well informed here. 92.5%), their specific cramming scale score for the Principles

course (SCS: Principles), and the interaction between cram- Figure 2

ming and the time delay. We followed the power expression Prediction of Master Test Score Considering Degree
used by Bacon and Stewart (2006) but added some modifi- of Cramming and Weeks of Delay
cations to account for the fact that control groups (CGs)
who took the MT at the beginning of the Fall 2006 90
Avg Cram = 15.2
Principles of Marketing course scored an average of about 85 Low Cram = 4.0
40% (rather than zero). To account for this, it seemed most High Cram = 28.0
80 Bacon & Stewart
logical to assume that learning only occurred between 40%
Master Test % (Prediction)

(the benchmark achieved by the CG) and 100%. Thinking 75
along these lines leads to the following model to explain 70
learning recall:
65
60
R = CG + (OL – CG) × (1 + RI)k × SCS × (OL – CG),
55
where (following Bacon & Stewart’s [2006] notation), 50
45
R = recall (e.g., the score on the MT);
40
CG = control group average score (which in this case 1 25 50 75 100 125 150
was 40%); Weeks Since Course
OL = original learning (e.g., the grade % in the
Principles course);
Note: The Bacon and Stewart (2006) results are included for compar-
RI = retention interval (e.g., the weeks since taking the ison and result from their power formulation and coefficient. Student
final in the course); A: Principles course grade = 85, but with high cramming = 28. Student
SCS = Specific Cramming Scale for the Principles B: Principles course grade = 85, but with average cramming = 15.
course (SCS: Principles); and
k = the learning decay-rate parameter
Principles = 15.2); Case 3 = a student who also earned an
This estimation was done by performing the following 85% but with high cramming (e.g., SCS: Principles = 28);
transformation: and finally, Case 4 = the results found by Bacon and Stewart
(2006) in a study of learning decay in a Consumer Behavior
course (the solid line in Figure 2). To plot the Bacon and
ln[(R − CG)/(OL − CG)] = k × SCS × OL × ln(1 + RI)

Stewart line, we used their formulation and decay constant.

As can be seen, the results from Bacon and Stewart’s work
Y = k×X are not terribly different from the results for the students in
our sample who reported doing average cramming, but it is
where k is the parameter to be estimated, which was done by clear that high cramming reduced expected recall very
specifying the above regression with a zero intercept term. strongly (compared to average cramming) and likewise that
The value of k is –.000128 and is highly significant because low cramming (e.g., the more methodical approach) substan-
t(158) = –18.619, p < .001.5 The R2 = .69 compared to that tially improved the expected results for those students.
of Bacon and Stewart (2006), which was R2 = .51. This dif- Considering the results at 150 weeks, high crammers
ference in R2 may reflect the fact that our formulation takes (e.g., cram = 28) who exhibited an 85% for original learn-
into account another significant effect (e.g., the degree of ing (OL) are expected to score about a 52%, which would
cramming), which is otherwise left to the error term. represent a retention of only 27% of what they had learned
Taking this model as truth, it indicates that cramming in in the course, since R = (52 - 40)/(85 - 40) = 27%. Average
the Principles course interacts very strongly with quarters of students on the cramming scale (e.g., cram = 15.2) who also
delay in retesting. This interaction is best illustrated by some earned an 85% in the course would be expected to have
examples. First consider the results shown in Figure 2, which retention of R = (62 – 40)/(85 – 40) = 49% of what they had
compares the expected decay in delayed MT score (e.g., learned. Low crammers (e.g., cram = 4) on the scale with an
recall) for four different cases: Case 1 = a methodical student 85% for original learning had retention of what they had
who earned an 85% in the course with low cramming (e.g., learned of 82%, because R = (77 – 40)/(85 – 40) = 82%. So
SCS: Principles = 4), which is the top line in Figure 2; Case the spread here is very large.
2 = a typical student who earned the same 85% as the course Also, it should be noted that our control group took the
score, but by the means of average cramming (e.g., SCS: MT at the beginning of the Principles class. Thus, our

control group might also be thought of as a “pretest” group. Figure 3

The retention score, R, against that base gets credit for any Predicted Learning Decay and Cramming Effects:
learning during that course, but also for reinforcement that A Comparison of Two Hypothetical Students
may have taken place after the Principles class. As students
complete advanced marketing courses, they revisit much of 100
the marketing basics. Thus, what appears to be retention is
most likely overestimated retention—for example, the true 90
retention interval is shorter because the students in the
Master Test % (Prediction)

advanced courses may have revisited some of the material 80
between the completion of the Principles course and the
completion of the MT, which was given toward the end of 70
an advanced course. In contrast, the Bacon and Stewart
(2006) study involved learning decay for the Consumer
60
Behavior course, which may have more esoteric content
that was not reinforced in other classes (e.g., in contrast to
50 Grade = 85; Avg Cram = 15
the broader and more general material in the Principles Grade = 95; High Cram = 28
course). Although this factor is believed to be the major
contributor to the differences in decay rates observed 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
between Bacon and Stewart’s findings and the present
Weeks Since Course
study, there are also other possible factors as well. Two in
particular come to mind, both related to differences in
methodology. The first relates to differences in how the
original learning variable (OL) was measured. Whereas
Bacon and Stewart used identical instruments to calculate regard to the other learning objectives covered on the MT,
their measures of OL and retained learning, (i.e., test scores we could not track them to specific, clear, and yet differen-
on a consumer behavior exam), the current study uses tial reinforcement in subsequent classes as this was not an
slightly different measures. That is, in the current study, the objective of the current study.
OL measure was the final course grade in the Principles As a second example, consider Figure 3, which depicts a
course, whereas the MT score served as the retained learn- scenario involving two hypothetical students: Student A with
ing measure. The second factor concerns possible nonlinear a high course grade of 95% but also with a high cramming
measures. Bacon and Stewart used Rasch analysis to cor- scale index (SCS: Principles = 28) compared to Student B,
rect for possible differences in test-item difficulty in their who earned 85% in the course and spaced out his studying
OL measure and argued that their measures are linear, and thereby had an average cramming index (SCS: Principles =
whereas multiple-choice percentage correct scores (as used 15). The model predication is that after 10 weeks, Student A
in the current study) may not be linear. Given that the cur- would have an MT score (e.g., recall) of 65% (an absolute
rent study did not use Rasch scores, the parameter estimates drop of 30%), compared to a 72% for Student B (who
could be somewhat biased. However, one might expect that exhibits an absolute drop of only 13%). Aside from the issue
any differences between Rasch scores and raw scores (as of the appalling decay rate for high-cramming students, this
used here) would be very small, as IRT (item response trait) illustrates how students might do well by cramming in the
scores generally correlate very highly with raw scores, short term and yet learn far less in terms of lasting value.
especially with a one-parameter IRT like Rasch.
To further investigate the reinforcement issue, we suban-
alyzed the nine questions on the MT pertaining to the Buyer Discussion
Behavior learning objective. These questions were about
the material in the buyer behavior chapter in the Principles Two major objectives in this study were to measure and
course textbook. Because students in the advanced courses assess the impact of cramming on reduced learning retention
were taking either (a) Buyer Behavior (n = 82) or (b) other (RQ4) and also whether the use of multiple-choice testing
advanced marketing courses (n = 78), the scores should dif- might increase the degree of cramming that students use in
fer. It is confirmatory of reinforcement, then, that the a course (RQ2). If this were true, the very act of standard-
students in the Buyer Behavior course averaged signifi- ized testing might, somewhat ironically, lower the degree of
cantly higher scores over the nine consumer-behavior- learning or reduce the retention span of that learning.
related questions (57.6% vs. 45.4%) than did students Our results are in alignment with memory and learning
taking the other courses, t(129) = –3.801, p < .001. With theory with regard to the general finding that cramming

(massed study) leads to little difference in the immediate Although there are numerous and varied approaches to
Principles of Marketing course grades, even though we find improve learning detailed in the literature, we have chosen
that cramming in general (i.e., for most courses) is associ- the following four as particularly relevant to breaking the
ated with a lower overall GPA (RQ3). However, there is a link between cramming and learning decay: deeper level
significant negative impact on MT scores from cramming learning, teaching assessment, teaching methods, and
that interacts with the delay in testing past the end of the higher level learning. Each is highlighted briefly in turn
course (RQ4). The more weeks that have passed since the below and linked where appropriate to the findings of the
course, the lower the MT score and the stronger the decay various RQs.
effect if the student’s cramming score was high, as indexed
on the scale SCS: Principles. The smaller effect of cram- Deeper level learning. A particularly promising
ming on the grades in the Principles course versus the larger approach to improve student learning and retention of
effect of general cramming on GPA can be reconciled, per- Marketing Principles course content is to employ teaching
haps, by the fact that students who cram may do well in the pedagogies that discourage cramming by fostering
course they are currently taking but then know much less “deeper” as opposed to more “superficial” learning (for
when starting to take a follow-on course that builds upon example, see Ausubel, 2000; Bacon & Stewart, 2006;
the first one. On the other hand, students who take a more Marton & Säljö, 1976; Neisser, 1984). Here the basic
methodical approach to studying retain much more learned objective is to try to use pedagogies that increase the mean-
material to build upon in later courses (e.g., resulting in a ing and connectedness of the materials to the already-
higher long-run GPA). learned schema and associative networks in the student’s
Additionally, there were other key results from this memory and, based on the results from RQ1, especially for
study, including the following. First, many students do the students who would otherwise be cramming at the end
claim to cram fairly heavily, and there are, indeed, two dis- of the term. In essence, teaching methods that enable, facil-
tinguishable groups: the cramming students and the itate, or encourage the otherwise-procrastinating student to
methodical ones (RQ1). Fortunately, students do not report elaborate the new material by building bridges or associa-
that they would use a cramming study strategy more for a tions between it and existing cognitive structures engender
course with known multiple-choice-style testing as opposed deeper learning. These approaches are consistent with sug-
to essay tests, which helps reduce concern about using gestions of both Bacon and Stewart (2006) and Hansen
multiple-choice tests in course assessment (RQ2). This is (2003). Bacon and Stewart, in their article on learning
important because of the many benefits multiple-choice retention in a Consumer Behavior course, made a set of six
tests have over more qualitative ones such as short-answer recommendations, including the following two related to
tests, which are more time-consuming for students to take deeper learning: “Develop a pedagogy that requires deep
and for faculty to grade (see Bacon, 2003). Second, learning early and often; and . . . sacrifice breadth for
students resoundingly agree that cramming will not do well depth” (p. 189). It is now clear that such recommendations
for long-range learning and retention 6 months and 1 year are particularly necessary for students who would other-
later even though they may do it (RQ3). So their percep- wise mostly be cramming (i.e., more than 45% of the
tions are correct on this matter. Yet many students (about students as found in the current study assessing RQ1).
45%) do report that they cram, and whether they do or not Hansen suggested using the Voeks Method to improve
themselves, they widely believe that other students cram. student learning in the Principles courses. This method is
grounded in the learning tenants of rehearsal, chunking, and
elaboration of course material—all three of which help
Implications and Recommendations improve memory and comprehension and, if followed,
The current study’s results for RQ4 regarding the rapid overcome cramming. Still other perhaps more widely used
learning decay rate in the Principles course may under- approaches and techniques are also available to help pro-
standably create a sense of mixed reactions—ranging from mote deeper learning, including such methods as incorpo-
surprise, to concern, to disappointment, depending upon the rating group exercises, homework, course-related projects,
constituency (instructors, department chairs, deans, plus others suggested by Bacon and Stewart, including “the
AACSB assessment officers, or students). Without doubt, ‘rework’ of homework assignments; requiring the student to
many instructors will be upset to learn that high-cramming find additional examples of a specific concept; and using
students, to whom they may have given good grades, will other assignments focusing on finding personal meaning”
forget most of what was learned. Many observers will con- (p. 184). All of these techniques have at their heart the prin-
sider such learning decay to be a serious problem, and from ciple of slowing the students down and thwarting their ten-
many perspectives that is so. What can be done to combat dency to procrastinate so that they do not fall into the
or reduce such cramming-induced decay effects? neglecting-and-then-cramming study pattern. Our findings

reveal that students perceive that procrastinating will not (2006), is that teaching assessment taken only at the end of
lead to long-term retention (results from RQ2), and yet they a course tends to assess the short-term recall (as shown in
do it because they know they can get away with it and results for RQ3) and not the long-run duration of apparent
achieve reasonable, or even good grades (as shown in the learning (as shown in results for RQ4). It would be inter-
results for RQ3). esting to have students indicate the instructor they had for
Another way to increase deeper level learning and com- the Principles of Marketing class to determine if there are
bat potential longer term learning decay (as reported for differences across instructors, not only in how the students
RQ4) and increase retention is to use conceptual or “orga- did on the final (MT portion), but also in how relatively
nizing frameworks” as a classroom instructional tool. Such long that learning was retained. Ideally such delayed
frameworks would normally be presented by the instructor assessment would be fed back into the instructor evalua-
at the beginning of the course. The framework would be tions in some way. Perhaps delayed retaking of exams
designed to provide an overview of the key course con- should be a standard practice and even fed back into the
cepts, ideas, topics, tools, and so on to be covered in the grading system for students. That would encourage students
course and show their interrelationships (e.g., in a figure or to retain their textbooks and to take a longer term perspec-
diagram). For example, in a study of 34 first-year medical tive on what they are learning in a course (to avoid the abil-
students, Novak, Mandin, Wilcox, and McLaughlin (2006) ity to cram and “get away with it”). Today when students
found that “students who develop expert-type knowledge take the Principles of Marketing course, they have little
structures during the period of instruction, and who use a incentive to take the long-run perspective to studying, even
conceptual framework in so doing, were more likely to keep for marketing majors, much less for finance or accounting
(that) knowledge . . . than those who did not use a con- majors. These possible problems aside, suggestions such as
ceptual framework” (p. 6). Similarly, within the marketing these are consistent with the calls of some researchers such
discipline, numerous potential frameworks might be used, as Bacon and Stewart to “assume a broader approach to
depending upon the course. Retention of material from the teaching evaluation.” Additionally, they suggest the follow-
Marketing Principles course probably benefits from frame- ing three practices for improving learning, each of which
works such as the Four Ps (Product, Price, Place, and might be viewed as related to various aspects of assess-
Promotion) or SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, ment: (a) Require students to take a course’s prerequisites
Opportunities, Threats) among others. immediately before the course (and we would add, particu-
Goals of longer term retention of course material would larly for lower GPA students who are more likely to be
seem best served by instructors who present frameworks at crammers); (b) focus course content on concepts and tools
the beginning of the course and then highlight key topics that students will encounter in their first job; and particu-
and interrelationships as they are covered during the term. larly (c) use cumulative exams, all of which are aimed at
The framework would be continuously revisited, with each dealing with the fact of learning decay (e.g., the results
new concept being discussed in light of where and how it shown in RQ4).
fits into the framework. Continued use of the framework
should facilitate clearer, quicker, and deeper encoding of Teaching methods. Another implication is that teaching
important course content. By linking each new concept to methods should encourage students to use methodical study
other relevant, already existing ones, the student’s ability to habits, for example, what we have defined as SS2
retrieve and recall the information at a later time should be (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Although this article is not the
enhanced. Although one might expect that the “payoff” place for a full treatment of this subject, a few examples
from using such organizing frameworks might differen- will support the point. For long-term retention, students
tially favor students who used a more methodical or sys- need to engage with the study material and apply it to situ-
tematized approach to studying (i.e., SS2), it could perhaps ations of relevance to them. The all-too-common use of
even help those who used a cramming strategy (i.e., SS3). PowerPoint slide lectures, even with in-class handouts of
Given that the results for RQ1 showed that more than 45% the slides, does not engage students to take notes in their
of students used cramming as an SS for both “most of my own language and handwriting, which shunts their process-
college courses” and in the Principles course, the frame- ing of the material, leaving all effective learning to the
work might offer them a structure on which to “hang” and cramming period at the end of the term. Also, studies have
better organize whatever course content they did manage to shown that attention spans during lectures may be as short
learn in their massed study sessions. as 7 to 9 minutes, therefore suggesting the use of a “feed-
back lecture” system. This system involves posing a ques-
Teaching assessment. A key implication of our results, tion to the class frequently (at least every 9 minutes)
particularly for RQ4, as well as those of Bacon and Stewart wherein students work in pairs to answer that question in

writing before more material is presented. A few students particularly as they become accustomed to the fact that
are called on to give their written statement before moving these two questions might be coming at the end of any day’s
on to more lecture. Again this forces students to come to class. This technique engages students and discourages
class and be engaged rather than taking a passive role until them from being passive and relying mostly on cramming
the burst of cramming at the end of the term. at the end of the term. Also, students come to realize that
Assuming that some students do not really understand the instructor cares about what they are learning and what
the spacing effect, it might be useful for instructors to share needs clarification. These papers then provide feedback to
key results from the current study with their students, par- the instructor as to what the students thought they learned
ticularly the results showing the large decays in course and what they were unclear about. This provides an induced
learning attributable to a cramming study strategy (i.e., review by the students, at each class, and a preview launch
RQ4 and Figures 2 and 3). Discussion of these results might pad for the instructor when preparing the next class.
be juxtaposed against a discussion of those in Keppel However, before marketers beat themselves up too badly
(1967) regarding the detrimental effects of massed versus about the current study’s findings for learning decay in the
distributed learning on short-term and long-term recall. Principles course (RQ4), one must ask how the findings
Perhaps it is not too much to hope that by discussing with would compare with the phenomenon in other business
students such issues as how they study, whether they cram, school courses and even other disciplines. Is the decay
how long they think they will remember course material, better or worse than those for required core courses in other
and so on, instructors might be able to influence some functional areas of business (e.g., accounting, economics,
students to seriously contemplate their approach to study- etc.) or, more broadly, those in other colleges or schools
ing and perhaps to adopt more effective long-term study within the university (e.g., engineering, arts and sciences,
strategies. etc.) or for majors versus nonmajors within any specific
We concur with Bacon and Stewart’s (2006) suggestion field (e.g., marketing vs. management or marketing vs.
that “students could be taught to use the PQ4R approach to history)? The marketing major versus nonmajor issue may
studying, which involves previewing material, identifying be particularly salient to the audience of this journal given
questions, reading once, reflecting and recalling out loud, the recent report here by Aggarwal, Vaidyanathan, and
and reviewing as necessary (Hartley, 2002, discussed this Rachford (2007) that marketing majors are generally
and other study skills worth teaching marketing students)” weaker students than those choosing to major in other func-
(p. 189). This approach is fundamentally anticramming. tional areas. Such questions constitute relevant topics for
Getting students to actually follow such practices is another possible future research.
(motivational) matter.
Limitations
Higher level learning. Another indirect implication is
that attention should be given to “higher level” learning that Like all studies, this one has its limitations. Results are
involves more affective results (e.g., that marketing is gen- based upon data collected from a rather small, narrow
erally a good thing for society or that “I want to be a mar- sample—160 students in nine sections of advanced marketing
keting major”) and gestalt/summative learning (e.g., that courses at a single university. All students in the study were
marketing does not equal sales, etc.). These aspects of marketing majors. The finding of interaction between cram-
learning are often not tapped by typical multiple-choice ming and learning decay is expected to be a general phe-
testing and, yet, may be very consequential results of taking nomenon, but the exact degree would be expected to vary as
a Principles of Marketing course. The MT developed for a function of several factors. Such factors could include dif-
this research was not designed to assess this kind of affec- ferent courses (ones with lots of detailed facts versus those
tive and gestalt learning. An approach to encouraging affec- with broad principles), different schools (those with highly
tive and gestalt learning is discussed in the recent book, engaged students versus the more socially oriented
What the Best College Teachers Do (Bain, 2004). That book schools), and students with differing learning goals (those
identifies the “one-minute paper” at the end of class (Bain, wanting to learn in a course relevant to their future careers
2004, p. 103) as being used by one of the most effective versus those mostly fulfilling a requirement but with career
teachers. This in-class activity asks students at the end of interests in another area).
class to write, in 60 seconds, “The most important thing Our failure to find a difference in perceived effectiveness
that you learned today,” followed by another 60 seconds to of cramming for multiple-choice as opposed to essay tests
write, “What was least clear or needs follow-up?” In our may stem from the shortcomings of self-reports in terms of
own use of this technique, we have found it to be an excellent either a reluctance to disclose or even an inability to cor-
tool for encouraging students to engage with the material, rectly introspect. However, these shortcomings are not really

correctable by larger sample sizes. Another limitation is the Internet may make the idea of knowing specific facts
that we sampled students only in advanced marketing seem less important to today’s students. Perhaps from a
courses, so they were all marketing majors. It would be use- “just-in-time” learning perspective, students are learning
ful in future research to broaden the sample and to investi- how to learn, and do so quickly. Maybe cramming is a
gate possible differences in learning outcomes between learned skill and something that employers want in a job
majors and nonmajors in the Marketing Principles course. candidate. That is, employers want someone with proven
Presumably the majors would both learn more initially as abilities to learn rapidly, as demonstrated by good grades,
well as retain more of the material over time than those and to cope with information overload and still meet
majoring in other subjects. But how large and how lasting demanding deadlines. Students may also build self-
might any such differences be? confidence in their ability to knuckle down and do con-
Another limitation is the always difficult attribution of centrated work when the need arises. Less accomplished
causation. For instance, there may be alternative explana- crammers might instead buckle under the pressure.
tions to the conclusion that a cramming strategy is causally Arguably, such explanations as these may help to explain
related to overall GPA and learning decay. Perhaps other the sustained demand for college graduates in the market-
factors such as available time, relative ability, interest in the place and their continually rising starting salaries across
topic, or overall effort are encapsulated in both GPA and the many disciplines. Indeed, W. G. Sommer (1990) con-
student’s relative tendency to choose a cramming strategy. tended that it is the “school rhythms and expectations
This would mean that the effect of cramming on long-term [that] shape the workplace and not vice versa” (p. 5). It is
memory for the material could be partly explained by other these rhythms and time structures that today’s bosses use
factors. and react to in the marketplace. “High pressure cramming,
From a very different perspective, it is natural to take mastered by adept students in college, has become the
such cramming in only a negative light. However, student acceptable work style in many fields: publishing, adver-
cramming is an age-old phenomenon, probably as old as tising, law, journalism, architecture, medicine, and per-
testing itself. Irrespective of how much course content forming arts” (W. G. Sommers, 1990, p. 8).
students may or may not learn, it appears that they do The previously noted perspectives and limitations aside,
actually learn to cram during their 4 years at college. many of the current study’s results are as expected and
Indeed, it is ubiquitous, and many of us probably did it appear sufficiently important and complex to warrant fur-
ourselves. Some researchers suggest that cramming ther research. Studies focusing on identifying and measur-
becomes the modus operandi of the adept student who ing various student SSs, why they occur, their relationship
learns to adapt to the unique pressures created by the ebb to learning outcomes (both short and long term), and further
and flow of the university calendar (W. G. Sommer, 1990). development of the two cramming scales used here may
In addition, the “information-at-your-fingertips” world of prove particularly useful.

Appendix A
Study Strategy Survey
Standard
Mean Deviation
Agreement with Study

Strategy 1 (SS1)—Extreme
Cramming
Q1 SS1 is a good description of how I study for MOST of my college courses. 3.82 1.91
Q2 If I use SS1, I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. 3.63 1.80
Q3 SS1 is a good description of how I studied for my Principles of Marketing course. 4.05 1.89
Q4 If I had used SS1, I would have gotten “a good final course grade.” 3.48 1.85
Q5 SS1 would work better for a multiple-choice exam than for an essay. 4.13 1.80
Q6 If I use SS1 I will still be able to “remember” most of it 6 months after the course. 2.25 1.37
Q8 Using SS1 would help me get good grades in a very “quantitative-type” course. 3.55 1.62
Q9 Using SS1 would help me get good grades in a very “qualitative-type” course. 3.25 1.52
Agreement with SS2—Keeping
Current and Reviewing
for Exams
Q11 If I use SS2 I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. 6.04 0.95
Q12 SS2 is a good description of how I studied for Principles of Marketing course. 3.71 1.56
Q14 SS2 would work better for a multiple-choice exam than for an essay exam. 4.74 1.45
Agreement with SS3—Keeping
Current and Cramming
for Exams
Q20 If I use SS3 I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. 5.66 0.96
Q21 SS3 is a good description of how I studied for my Principles of Marketing course. 4.71 1.71
Q23 SS3 would work better for a multiple-choice exam than for an essay exam. 5.11 1.13
Student opinions about SSs
Q28 It pays off more for me to study mostly just before tests. 4.51 1.66
Q29 I get behind, so for the exam I’m reading some material for the first time. 4.26 1.68
Q30 Most students cram for tests, but otherwise study little. 4.95 1.38
Q31 Personally, I cram for tests and otherwise study little. 3.86 1.76
Q32 Only a few students cram for tests as their main study approach. 3.17 1.39
Q33 I keep current in every course, so when studying for the final it’s all review. 3.95 1.53
Q34 When multiple choice tests are used, the best strategy is to cram for the tests. 3.54 1.64
Q35 I like to stay up really late before a test and study hard. 3.27 2.02
Q36 I try to be sure to get enough sleep before my tests to be certain I am rested. 5.04 1.59
What determines the SS
you use?
Q37 How difficult I expect the course to be. 5.69 1.21
Q38 Whether it’s a “required course” in my major. 3.79 1.67
Q39 Whether it’s a “quantitative” or “qualitative” course. 4.03 1.47
Q40 What I expect I could earn as a final course grade. 5.26 1.45
Q41 What study strategy my instructor recommends. 4.07 1.66
(continued)

Appendix A (continued)
Standard
Mean Deviation
Q42 What study strategy my classmates recommend. 4.16 1.58

Q43 What study strategy I think I should use. 5.95 1.01
How did you study in the
Principles of Marketing
course?
Q44 Mostly I studied just before the tests. 4.79 1.49
Q45 I would advise a friend to study mostly right before the tests. 3.70 1.59
Q46 When studying for the final, I’m reading some material for the first time. 3.64 1.63
Q47 I kept up with the reading, so studying for the final was all review for me. 3.73 1.48
Q48 I stayed up really late before the final exam to study hard. 3.45 1.72
Q49 I had finished reading everything by the point I started studying for the final. 3.81 1.61
Note: Items measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly.
Appendix B
Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings of Survey Items About Study Strategies
QID Question Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Q1 SS1 is a good description of how I study for MOST of my college courses. .825 — —
Q2 If I use SS1, I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. .786 — —
Q4 If I had used SS1, I would have gotten “a good final course grade.” .749 — —
Q3 SS1 is a good description of how I studied for my Principles of Marketing course. .743 — —
Q9 Using SS1 would help me get good grades in a very “qualitative-type” course. .731 — —
Q6 If I use SS1, I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 6 months after the course. .654 — —
Q8 Using SS1 would help me get good grades in a very “quantitative-type” course. .618 — —
Q7 If I use SS1, I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 12 months after the course. .601 — —
Q5 SS1 would work better for a multiple-choice exam than for an essay question exam. .497 — —
Q19 SS3 is a good description of how I study for MOST of my college courses. –.452 — —
Q24 If I use SS3, I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 6 months after the course. — .792 —
Q27 Using SS1 would help me get good grades in a very “qualitative-type” course. — .787 —
Q26 Using SS3 would help me get good grades in a very “quantitative-type” course. — .728 —
Q22 If I had used SS3, I would have gotten “a good final course grade.” — .694 —
Q20 If I use SS3, I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. — .690 —
Q25 If I use SS3, I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 12 months after the course. — .630 —
Q23 SS3 would work better for a multiple-choice exam than for an essay question exam. — .542 —
Q18 Using SS2 would help me get good grades in a very “qualitative-type” course. — .503 —
Q17 Using SS2 would help me get good grades in a very “quantitative-type” course. — .479 —
Q15 If I use SS2, I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 6 months after the course. — — .588
Q21 SS3 is a good description of how I studied for my Principles of Marketing course. — — –.497
Q11 If I use SS2, I will get “good final course grades” in MOST of my courses. — — .494
Q16 If I use SS2 I will still be able to “remember” most of the material 12 months after the course. — — .477
Note: Only factor loadings of > .4 are reported. Extraction method: Principal components analysis.

Notes Brinthaupt, T. M., & Shin, C. M. (2001). The relationship of academic cram-
ming to flow experience. College Student Journal, 35(3), 457-472.
1. “Flow” characterizes a mental state that involves a challenging Crewe, J. C. (1969). The effect of study strategies on the retention of col-
activity that requires skills, the merging of action and awareness, lege material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1, 45–52.
Cross, P. K. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of
clear goals and feedback, concentration on the task at hand, the loss
teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60, 402-407.
of self-consciousness, and the transformation of time perception.
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the
2. For instance, Bacon (2003) found that multiple-choice tests
distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal
were as reliable and valid as short-answer tests, could be completed
of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795-805.
more quickly, and were gender-neutral. Regarding time, he found that Ebbinghaus, H. M. (1885/1964). A contribution to experimental psychol-
more than three multiple-choice questions could be completed in the ogy. New York: Dover.
time it takes to complete a single short-answer question. Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination
3. All t test probabilities in this study are calculated as 2-tailed inventories for adults: Arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of
(which is the most conservative approach). Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97-110.
4. We address two short-run actual performance measures, GPA Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and
and the Principles of Marketing course grade. Why these are both task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (Springer Series in
taken as short-run outcomes requires explanation. One might think Social/Clinical Psychology). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
of the GPA as a long-run result, but on closer examination it is actu- Golden, D. (2006, November 13). Colleges, accreditors seek better ways
ally a short-run measure from the point of view that each grade is to measure learning. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
based on the immediate results in that course, rather than recall of Hansen, D. E. (2003). Using the Voeks method to improve student learn-
that course material later on well after the course is finished. The ing in the Principles of Marketing classes. Journal of Marketing
GPA, then, is simply an average of many observations of the grade Education, 25(2), 108-117.
(a short-run result) from each individual course. In the next section Hartley, J. (2002). Studying for the future. Journal of Further and Higher
(under Research Question 4), we investigate the long-run effect of Education, 26, 207-227.
cramming where that means a measure taken well past the end of the Kelly, C., & Gaedeke, R. M. (1990). Student and employer evolution of
course. hiring criteria for entry-level marketing positions. Journal of
Marketing Education, 12, 65-71.
5. Another regression analysis, of a simple linear formulation, cor-
Kentler, K. A., Hampton, D. R., & Maftin, A. B. (1994). Building critical
roborates that there is a significant interaction between cramming and
thinking skills: Can standardized testing accomplish IT? Marketing
delay, even without the power formulation being involved.
Education Review, 4, 20-27.
Keppel, G. (1967). A reconsideration of the extinction-recovery theory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(4), 476-486.
References Maitre, M. (2006, October 16). For UC students, pulling all-nighters rou-
tine practice: Some claim that cramming works for midterms, finals
AACSB. (2000). The International Association for Management Education, and meeting deadlines. San Jose Mercury News, p. B1.
Achieving Quality and Continuous Improvement Through Self-Evaluation Marklein, M. B. (2006, November 14). Should government take a yard-
and Peer Review: Standards accreditation. St. Louis, MO: Author. stick to colleges? Spellings and institutions at odds over transparency.
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: USA Today, pp. 1-2.
Task characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Martinez, K. (1995, June 15). Assessment, quality and accreditation in
Education, 27(1), 5-13. schools of business. Paper presented at the AAHE Conference on
Aggarwal, P., Vaidyanathan, R., & Rachford, L. (2007). The wretched Assessment and Quality, Boston, MA.
refuse of a teeming shore? A critical examination of the quality of Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-out-
undergraduate marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, come and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
29(3), 223-233. McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., King, N. D., Harris, R. C.,
Allen, M. J. (2004a). Alignment. In Assessing academic programs in & Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group pro-
higher education (pp. 39-53). Bolton, MA: Anker. jects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of
Allen, M. J. (2004b). Defining learning objectives. In Assessing academic Marketing Education, 21, 106-126.
programs in higher education (pp. 27-38). Bolton, MA: Anker. McDaniel, S. W., & White, C. (1993). The quality of the academic prepa-
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cog- ration of undergraduate marketing majors: An assessment by company
nitive view. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. recruiters. Marketing Education Review, 3, 9-16.
Bacon, D. R. (2003). Assessing learning outcomes: A comparison of McMartin, F. (1999, April 20). A collaborative role for industry in assess-
multiple-choice and short-answer questions in a marketing context. ing student learning. Presented at the Annual Forum of the
Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 31-36. Association for Institutional Research, Seattle, WA.
Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2006). How fast do students forget what Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Academic effort and college
they learn in a consumer behavior course? A longitudinal study. grades. Social Forces, 68(1), 309-319.
Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 181-192. Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: group activities: Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development.
Harvard College Press. In To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional and orga-
Bahrick, H. P., & Phelps, E. (1987). Retention of Spanish vocabulary over nizational development, ed. D. DeZure. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.
8 years. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Moffat, M. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American
Cognition, 13(2), 344-349. culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bloom, K. C., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed Neisser, U. (1984). Interpreting Harry Bahrick’s discovery: What confers
practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. immunity against forgetting? Journal of Experimental Psychology—
Journal of Educational Research, 74(4), 245-248. General, 113, 32-35.

Novak, K., Mandin, H., Wilcox, E., & McLaughlin, K. (2006). Using a con- Sommer, R. (1968). The social psychology of cramming. Personnel and
ceptual framework during learning attenuates the loss of expert-type Guidance Journal, 9, 104–109.
knowledge structure. BMC Medical Education, 6(37), 1-8. Sommer, W. G. (1990). Procrastination and cramming: How adept
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1967/1994). Psychometric theory. students ace the system. Journal of American College Health, 39,
New York: McGraw Hill. 5-10.
Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., & Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and Taraban, R., Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K. (1999). Measuring study
the planning fallacy: An examination of the study habits of university time distributions: Implications for designing computer-based
students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 135-150. courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college grades: 31(2), 263-269.
Does hard work help students “make the grade”? Sociology of Tice, D. E., & Baumeister, R. E. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrasti-
Education, 73, 19-38. nation, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of
Rea, C. P., & Modigliani, V. (1985). The effect of expanded versus massed dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.
practice on the retention of multiplication facts and spelling lists. Human Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the
Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4(1), 11-18. Procrastination Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Schmidt, R. (1983). Who maximizes what? A study in student time allo- 51, 473–480.
cation. American Economic Review, 73(2), 23-28. Vacha, E., & McBride, M. (1993). Cramming: A barrier to student suc-
Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (2001). Effort and cess, a way to beat the system, or an effective learning strategy?
reward: The assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of College Student Journal, 27(1), 2-11.
study. Sociology of Education, 74, 945-966. Willingham, D. T. (2002). Allocating student study time: Massed versus
Selyukh, A. (2007, November 13). Time management, avoiding procrastina- distributed practice. American Educator, 26(2), 37-39.
tion key in evading end-of-semester stress. Daily Nebraskan, pp. 1-3.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.dailynebraskan Shelby H. McIntyre is a professor of marketing at Santa Clara
.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayAritclePrinterFriendly. University.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination:
Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling J. Michael Munson is an associate professor of marketing at Santa Clara
Psychology, 31, 503–509. University.
View publication stats

ExploringCramming PublishedDec302008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ExploringCramming PublishedDec302008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Journal of Marketing Education · May 2008

Shelby H. Mcintyre J. Michael Munson

Motivation for User Generated Content (UGC) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Student Behaviors, Beliefs, and Learning

Keywords: cramming; study strategies; cramming scales; learning decay

A recent newspaper article subtitled “Some Claim That

226 Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Q1 SS1 Is how I study most of the time 1

Q44 Studied only before tests 1

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Figure 1 RQ3: How Effective Is

For the Principles of Marketing course grade, we con-

clude that the course grade is not significantly related to the

degree of cramming reportedly used in the course. Certainly

the relationship is less dramatic and consistent across the

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

course (SCS: Principles), and the interaction between cram- Figure 2

Master Test % (Prediction)

where (following Bacon & Stewart’s [2006] notation), 50

Stewart line, we used their formulation and decay constant.

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

control group might also be thought of as a “pretest” group. Figure 3

Master Test % (Prediction)

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Agreement with Study

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Q42 What study strategy my classmates recommend. 4.16 1.58

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

Downloaded from http://jmd.sagepub.com at SANTA CLARA UNIV on November 4, 2008

View publication stats

You might also like