Making Connections: Evaluating the Effectiveness
of Journal Writing in Enhancing Student Learning
Patricia A. Connor-Greene
Clemson University
Although journal writing has been extensively described and advo-
cated in the teaching literature, little attention has been given to em-
pirical assessment of its effectiveness in increasing student learning.
Previous evaluations typically relied on student and faculty percep-
tions rather than performance measures. In this article, I describe
journal writing as a way to actively engage students in learning
about personality theories and include new criteria for instructor
evaluation of journal entries. Analysis of student test grades indi-
cated that a journal writing assignment increased student learning,
and student evaluations supported the perceived usefulness of this
exercise in fostering understanding. Examples from journals illus-
trate the ways in which students connected the course material to
their own observations.
As faculty, it is our responsibility to do more than simply
teach the content of psychological theory and research. We
must instill enthusiasm for lifelong learning by creating a
context in which students see themselves as active thinkers
and problem solvers. Too often, academic settings pressure
students to “defend their knowledge rather than exhibit
their thinking” (Clinchy, 1995, p. 100). Our challenge is to
find ways to invite our students into the process of learning.
The level of thinking that occurs in a class is shaped by the
kinds of questions teachers ask. If we want to encourage
students to actively engage concepts rather than memorize,
we must create assignments that foster this form of thinking
(King, 1995).
Over the last decade, many authors have advocated “con-
nected teaching” techniques to encourage students to ac-
tively develop their ideas rather than to simply receive
knowledge (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986;
Hettich, 1990; Paludi, 1986; Rickabaugh, 1993; Stevenson,
1989). Assignments that foster active engagement and per-
sonal investment are widely considered to be effective teach-
ing techniques (Angelo, 1995), and both teachers and
students enthusiastically endorse writing activities as en-
hancing critical thinking (Hettich, 1990; Young & Fulwiler,
1986). Encouraging students to relate course material to
their experiences is one way to foster connected learning, but
students can become so involved in making personal connec-
tions that they ignore or minimize the course content. If this
problem arises, the classroom becomes a setting for exchang-
ing anecdotes rather than learning course material. Further-
more, if students share personal experiences openly in class,
varying levels of disclosure create discomfort for those who
share too much or too little (Underwood & Wald, 1995).
44
Journals are one solution to the problem of balancing
course content with application. I use the term journal to re-
fer to written connections that a student makes between
course content and material outside of class (e.g., books, tele-
vision, film), rather than referring to writing that is specifi-
cally autobiographical. Although students sometimes choose
to write about personal experiences, I do not require them to
do so. Defined in this way, the focus of the journal is cognitive
rather than affective and avoids the potential ethical dilem-
mas inherent in asking students to share autobiographical in-
formation (Hettich, 1990; Jenkinson, 1988; Keith-Spiegel &
Koocher, 1985; Polyson, 1985). Because students write jour-
nals outside of class, class time is preserved for explaining and
discussing concepts.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of journal writing assign-
ments is typically limited to assessing student or teacher per-
ceptions. Little empirical research has investigated whether
learning actually improves as a result of writing assignments
(McGovern & Hogshead, 1990; Michalak, 1989). To more
fully assess the effectiveness of writing activities, it is impor-
tant to include both performance and attitudinal measures.
Furthermore, many articles endorsing the use of writing ac-
tivities fail to include specific criteria used to evaluate stu-
dent writing assignments.
Method
Because a personality theory can be thought of as a lens
through which people view the world, a course on this topic
lends itself well to journal writing. I teach a Personality The-
ories course that takes a historical perspective, covering 15
different theories.
Students in my course keep a journal in which they apply
theoretical concepts to characters from TV, books, videos,
songs, news events, politics, themselves, friends, or family.
Each journal entry must identify a theorist, describe a specific
concept from that theory, and explain how the example illus-
trates that concept. Students receive written comments on
each entry; I grade entries using the following criteria:
3 points—Concept is well explained and example is rel-
evant
2 points—Concept is not well explained or example
does not appear to fit
1 point—Concept is not well explained and example is
unclear
Teaching of Psychology
 0 points—Late paper or not handed in (late papers re-
ceive written comments but do not earn points)
1 bonus point—Unusually creative examples and appli-
cations
My students used a variety of creative examples from
song lyrics (e.g., Carole King’s 1991 song “Where you Lead”
for Karen Horney’s concept of compliant personality, “No-
body Knows” by the Tony Rich Project [1995] for Sullivan’s
concept of “as if” behavior, Reba McEntire’s 1992 “The
Heart Won’t Lie” for Kelly’s concept of rigid adherence to a
construct), television (Beavis and Butt-head [Andrews,
Brown, & Norman 1993–1997] for Bandura’s observational
learning, a Seinfeld episode on “worlds colliding” [Mandel,
1995] for Jung’s concept of persona), film (Jason’s Lyric, a
1994 Doug McHenry film, for Kelly’s constructive
alternativism), and literature (Willa Cather’s 1925 The Pro-
fessor’s House for Fromm’s hoarding orientation, Holden
Caulfield in J. D. Salinger’s 1951 The Catcher in the Rye for
Horney’s detached personality, and Henrik Ibsen’s 1923 A
Doll’s House for Rogers’s concepts of conditions of worth
and incongruence). Although the journals are not intended
to be autobiographical, some students chose personal and
family concerns as examples, including sexual abuse
(Sullivan’s selective inattention), a parent’s affair (Murray’s
concepts of need and press), bulimia (Freud’s conflict be-
tween id and superego), coping with physical disability
(Adler’s striving for superiority), and coming out as gay or
lesbian (Jung’s persona). Given the nature of some of the
students’ examples, it is important that teachers assigning
journals be alert to cries for help from students, be familiar
with campus and community referral resources, and encour-
age students to seek counseling when indicated.
I used the journals in two successive semesters. The first
semester, students wrote a journal entry for each theorist
(15). Students turned in journals weekly and received writ-
ten feedback and grades on each entry. Because of student
suggestions to reduce the number of journal entries and the
time required to grade 15 journal entries for 68 students, I
modified the assignment for the next semester, requiring only
5 journal entries (each student chose any 5 theorists). Due
dates were spaced throughout the semester, and students re-
ceived their graded journals with written feedback within a
week of submission.
To obtain an empirical measure of whether journals in-
creased student learning, I compared student test grades from
the two semesters in which I assigned journals (15 journals vs.
5 journals) with a previous class in which I had not assigned
journals. All three classes were approximately the same size,
met in the same classroom at the same time of day, and used
the same textbook and comparable tests (five tests with a mix
of multiple-choice, definitions, true–false with explanation,
and essay questions).
Results
ANOVA indicated a significant difference in test scores
among classes, F(2, 179) = 10.2, p < .001. Using the
Bonferroni correction, the alpha level was set at .01667 for
Vol. 27, No. 1, 2000
Table 1. Representative Written Comments
from Students
Pushed me to keep up with class lectures and readings
Made me continually think about the theories even when I wasn’t in
class
Forced me to spend more time on each theory
Got my creative juices flowing
Made me read and look at the theory in more depth
It helped me to put the theories into my own perspective and by
doing this I think I will remember them a whole lot longer
It was good to be able (or rather to be forced) to apply knowledge,
which doesn’t happen in many psych classes
It was a chance to apply what I’ve learned—it brought
understanding to my life and helped me bring resolution to some
circumstances
I paid more attention on a daily basis to psychological concepts
around me
Helps you maintain writing skills
pairwise comparisons. The grades in the 15-journal entry
class (M = 79.75, SD = 10.52) were significantly higher than
those in the no-journal class (M = 73.84, SD = 12.07),
t(118) = 4.42, p < .01. Likewise, grades in the 5-journal en-
try class (M = 81.86, SD = 7.78) were significantly higher
than those in the no-journal class, t(123) = 4.41, p < .001.
There was no difference between the test grades of the two
classes that wrote journals, t(117) = 1.25, p = .22.
It is noteworthy that writing 5 journals resulted in as much
improvement in test performance as writing 15 journals, as
journals represent a major time commitment on the part of
both student and teacher. However, it is important not to
overinterpret this finding to assume that more writing is not
better. The students who wrote 15 journals may have re-
ceived other benefits (e.g., improved writing skills, increased
confidence about writing) that are not reflected in their
grades on a psychology test.
At the end of each semester in which the students wrote
journals, students anonymously completed a three-item
questionnaire using a scale ranging from 1 (very much so) to 5
(not at all). Because there were no differences in ratings be-
tween the 15-journal and 5-journal classes, results from the
two classes (N = 124) are combined. Items and mean ratings
are as follows: (a) Did writing the journals give you a clearer
understanding of the theories? (M = 2.06, SD = .83); (b) Did
writing the journals encourage you to apply the theories,
rather than simply memorize them? (M = 1.74, SD = .84);
(c) Would you recommend that the journals continue to be
required in this course? (M = 2.02, SD = .96). In written
comments, many of the students in the 15-journal class sug-
gested reducing the number of journal entries; only two stu-
dents in the 5-journal class made this suggestion. Students’
comments indicated that the journals were a successful stim-
ulus to active learning. Representative student comments ap-
pear in Table 1. One of the most memorable student
comments was:
I’m used to just memorizing information and reciting it back
out for the test. These journals helped me interact personally
with the theories and really gave me a new perspective on my
life. The only problem now is I can’t watch TV or listen to any-
one talk without thinking, “Oh, that’s what Rogers would call
conditions of worth!,” or whatever another theorist might say.
45
 Discussion
The results of this study suggest that journal writing en-
hanced student learning as reflected in test scores. Further-
more, students perceived journal writing as a valuable
assignment that fostered understanding and application of
concepts.
This study used a quasi-experimental design in comparing
classes across three semesters. Because students were not
randomly assigned to conditions, other unknown variables
may have contributed to the test score differences between
classes. Further empirical research is needed to more thor-
oughly investigate the value of journal writing in increasing
student learning.
From my perspective, the journals enable me to listen to
students making connections between the course material
and their lives. The journals provide a forum for interacting
individually with each student, which is especially helpful
with students who are reticent to speak in class. In my written
comments, I can clarify misunderstood concepts that might
have gone unnoticed if the student had not attempted to ap-
ply them. Although reading and commenting on the journals
is time consuming, they are a pleasure to read and often give
me new ideas about how to present concepts in class. I rec-
ommend journals as an effective method to engage students
in the process of thinking and learning.
References
Andrews, J., Brown, K., & Norman, C. (Producers). (1993–1997).
Beavis and Butt-head. New York: MTV.
Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking.
Teaching of Psychology, 22, 6–7.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M.
(1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and
mind. New York: Basic Books.
Cather, W. (1925). The professor’s house. New York: Vintage.
Clinchy, B. M. (1995). A connected approach to the teaching of
developmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22,
100–104.
Hettich, P. (1990). Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine?
Teaching of Psychology, 17, 36–39.
Ibsen, H. (1923). A doll’s house; Ghosts; An enemy of the people. New
York: Boni & Liveright.
46
Jenkinson, E. B. (1988). Learning to write/writing to learn. Phi Delta
Kappan, 69, 712–717.
Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. P. (1985). Ethics in psychology. New
York: Random House.
King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using
questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22,
13–17.
King, C. (1971). Where you lead. On Tapestry [CD]. New York:
Sony/Columbia.
Mandel, D. (1995). The pool guy. In A. Ackerman (Producer),
Seinfeld. New York: National Broadcasting Corporation.
McEntire, R. (1992). The heart won’t lie. On It’s your call [CD].
Nashville, TN: UNI/MCA.
McGovern, T. V., & Hogshead, D. L. (1990). Learning about writ-
ing, thinking about teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 5–10.
McHenry, D. (Director). (1994). Jason’s lyric [Film]. (Available from
Gramercy Pictures, 9333 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills,
CA 90210)
Michalak, S. J. (1989). Writing more, learning less? College Teaching,
37(2), 43–45.
Paludi, M. A. (1986). Teaching the psychology of gender roles: Some
life-stage considerations. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 133–138.
Polyson, J. (1985). Students’ peak experiences: A written exercise.
Teaching of Psychology, 12, 211–213.
Rickabaugh, C. A. (1993). The psychology portfolio: Promoting
writing and critical thinking about psychology. Teaching of Psy-
chology, 20, 170–172.
Salinger, J. D. (1951). The catcher in the rye. Boston: Little, Brown.
Stevenson, M. R. (1989). Creating a connected classroom: Two pro-
jects that work! Teaching of Psychology, 16, 212–214.
Tony Rich Project. (1995). Nobody knows. On Words [CD]. New
York: BMG/Arista/La Face.
Underwood, M. K., & Wald, R. L. (1995). Conference-style learn-
ing: A method of fostering critical thinking with heart. Teaching of
Psychology, 22, 17–21.
Young, A., & Fulwiler, T. (1986). Writing across the disciplines. Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Notes
1. A portion of this article was presented at the annual meeting of
the South Carolina Psychological Association, Myrtle Beach,
SC, April 1996.
2. Send correspondence to Patricia A. Connor-Greene, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Brackett 418, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634–1511; e-mail: connorg@clemson.edu.
Teaching of Psychology