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

net/publication/233268015

Performance of College Students: Impact of Study Time and Study Habits

Article  in  The Journal of Education for Business · March 2010

DOI: 10.1080/08832320903449550

CITATIONS READS
152 27,520

2 authors:

Sarath A. Nonis Gail I. Hudson

Arkansas State University - Jonesboro Arkansas State University - Jonesboro
41 PUBLICATIONS   1,598 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   679 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing and Assessing Critical Thinking Skills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gail I. Hudson on 09 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 229–238, 2010
Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832320903449550

Performance of College Students: Impact of Study

Time and Study Habits
Sarath A. Nonis and Gail I. Hudson
Arkansas State University, State University, Arkansas, USA

Available empirical research investigating the relationship that study time has with college
student performance has seen mixed results. Positive, negative, and no relationship between
the two variables has been reported (G. A. Krohn & C. M. O’Conner, 2005; A. G. Lahmers
& C. Zulauf, 2000; R. M. Schmidt, 1983). At a time when there is overwhelming evidence
that students are devoting less time to their studies (Higher Education Research Institute,
2003), it is critical for educators who desire to encourage and motivate their students to
engage in productive study behavior to first understand the true nature of this relationship.
The authors investigated the influence of a third variable, study habits. Based on a sample of
business students, results showed some study habits had a positive direct relationship on student
performance but others had a negative direct relationship. Results also showed 1 study habit
moderated the relationship between study time and student performance positively, but another
study habit moderated the relationship negatively. Discussion of the findings, implications, and
directions for further research are also provided.

Keywords: academic performance, college students, study habits, study time

Students lead very busy lives and, as a result, spend too lit- time is a variable over which students have the most control
tle time studying (Nonis & Hudson, 2006). How does this and that there is clear evidence that today’s college students
influence their learning? Those individuals who were under- are devoting less time for studies and more time for other
graduates before the information technology revolution are activities (Higher Education Research Institute, 2003; Nonis,
likely to assume that student performance goes down as a re- Philhours, & Hudson, 2006), there is a need for empirical
sult of this lifestyle. Surprisingly though, when the research research focusing on this issue. Researchers need to know
is reviewed the results have been mixed (Becker, 1997; Borg, what influence time spent studying outside of class has on
Mason, & Shapiro, 1989; Douglas & Sulock, 1995; Gleason academic performance, as well as the true nature of this
& Walstad, 1988; Lumsden & Scott, 1987). For example, influence.
contrary to popular belief, Krohn & O’Conner (2005) and In the present study we investigated study time’s relation-
Didia & Hasnat (1998) reported that study time negatively ship with the academic performance of undergraduate busi-
correlates with academic performance. Does this mean that ness students. Within this context, we examined the effect of
the less time a student devotes to studying outside of class a third variable—the study habits of students. When consid-
the higher his or her performance is? Not really, although ering the relationship between study time and performance, it
there is a lack of empirical evidence attempting to determine is not only how much time a student spends studying but also
why such relationships exist. how effectively this time is spent that influences academic
According to Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner (2004), the performance (Nonis & Hudson, 2006). Unfortunately, most
understanding of one of the most basic inputs in the education studies that have investigated the relationship between study
process that is students’ study time and its relationship to time and academic performance to date (Krohn & O’Conner,
academic performance is at present limited at best. Given that 2005; Lahmers & Zulauf, 2000; Schmidt, 1983) have not
controlled for the effectiveness of how this time has been
used and this could explain the mixed findings. Therefore, in
Correspondence should be address to Sarath A. Nonis, Arkansas State
the present study we attempted to determine if study habits
University, Marketing Department, Box 59, State University, AR 72467, moderate the relationship between study time and academic
USA. E-mail: [email protected] performance. In other words, does the quality of a student’s
230 S. A. NONIS AND G. I. HUDSON

study time as measured by study habits impact the relation- of these relationships is important from a research and an ap-
ship between the quantity of study time and academic per- plication perspective. This leads to the first two hypotheses:
formance? If study time impacts academic performance, it is
Hypothesis 1A (H1A): Study time would significantly relate
reasonable to expect this impact to be stronger for students
to semester grade point average (SGPA).
with good study habits compared to students with poor study
H 1B : Study time would significantly relate to cumulative
habits.
grade point average (CGPA).
Investigating these relationships can bring researchers
closer to finding a plausible explanation for the mixed find-
Relationship Between Study Habits and
ings in previous study-time research. From an applications
Academic Performance
perspective, at a time when students spend equal or less time
studying than either working or watching television (Nonis It is not only the general ability that students bring to
et al., 2006), it is worthwhile to investigate what effect, if any, a class that contributes to their academic achievement.
study habits have on the relationship between study time and Several studies have investigated and found that demo-
academic performance. graphic variables, such as gender, age, and race (Beaumont-
Walters & Soyibo, 2001; Haist, John, Elam, Blue, & Fosson,
2000; Wong, 2000); psychological variables, such as aca-
demic self-efficacy (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee,
1991); motivation (Barling & Charbonneau, 1992); optimism
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT
(Schulman, 1999); and behavioral variables, such as time-
OF HYPOTHESES
management skills (Paden & Stell, 1997), relate to student
performance. Missing from these investigations are the study
Relationship Between Study Time and Academic
habits or strategies that students use to learn, such as paying
Performance
attention in class, being on time, taking good notes, com-
In his investigation of 216 students enrolled in a macroeco- pleting homework in a timely manner, and reading the study
nomics course, Schmidt (1983) did not report any relation- material before a lecture, that are likely to impact their perfor-
ship between the time spent studying outside of class with mance. Although not every learning strategy or study habit
student learning. More recently, Nonis & Hudson (2006) produces useful results in terms of academic achievement,
reported similar results from their investigation of 264 un- it would be expected that students who possess good study
dergraduate students, who for 1 week recorded in diaries how habits in general are better performers than are those students
they spent their time on various activities including study- with poor study habits.
ing. Study time did not demonstrate any significant direct There is some empirical evidence that shows that study
relationship with academic outcomes, such as GPA or per- habits impact academic performance. Borg et al. (1989) and
formance perceptions. Okpala, Okpala, and Ellis (2000) reported that good study
But other empirical research studies have reported signifi- strategies positively influenced performance in economics
cant relationships, positive and negative, between study time courses. More recently, Elias (2005) investigated the rela-
and academic performance. For example, during an experi- tionship that two different approaches to studying—deep,
mental investigation of 79 undergraduates enrolled in agricul- which involved developing competencies in subject matter,
tural economics classes, Lahmers and Zulauf (2000) found and surface, which involved simply wanting to meet course
that a one-letter-grade increase in quarter GPA was associated expectations—have on student performance in a basic ac-
with a 40-hr increase in weekly study time. Michaels and Mi- counting course. Results showed that accounting students us-
ethe (1989) also found that study time positively influenced ing the deep approach had a significant, positive relationship
grades among freshman and sophomore college students. with their course grade, whereas students using the surface
However, Ackerman and Gross (2003) found that students approach had a significant, negative relationship. Davidson
with less free time to study had a significantly higher GPA (2002) also reported a deep study approach that demonstrated
than did those with more study time. Similarly, Krohn and a positive relationship with course performance on complex
O’Connor (2005) and Didia and Hasnat (1998) reported that examination questions but not on simple (less complex) ones.
study time negatively affected student performance. Consid- However, he did not report a negative relationship with a sur-
ering these mixed results, there is a need to reinvestigate the face study approach and performance on either complex or
direct relationship between study time and academic perfor- simple examination questions. These results taken as a whole
mance. suggest that study skills have a relationship with student per-
In the present study, we hypothesized that there would be formance but the nature of this relationship is likely to be
a significant relationship between study time and cumula- more complicated than many researchers believe. In fact,
tive GPA (CGPA) as well as semester GPA (SGPA). Because the study approaches used by students also seem to be situa-
SGPA is a short-term measure of academic performance and tion specific (Beatie, Collins, & McInnes, 1997; Biggs, 1988;
CGPA a long-term, cumulative measure, investigating both Eley, 1992). For example, a student studying for a major essay
 PERFORMANCE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 231

exam is likely to take a deep approach while that same student more often compared to students who use good study
might take a surface approach when studying for a regular habits less often.
multiple-choice exam. H 3B : Study habits would moderate the relationship between
In the present study, we hypothesized that study skills or study time and academic performance (CGPA), in that
habits would have a significant direct relationship with the the influence study time has on performance (CGPA)
academic performance of college students as measured by would be more for students who use good study habits
their GPA. Because much of the previous research on study more often compared to students use good study habits
habits has looked at the influence on student performance less often.
in specific courses, the findings from this study should shed
more light on the relationship that study habits have with Control Variables
students’ overall academic performance both in the short
Previous research relating to academic performance has
and long term.
reported that several other variables, not yet discussed
H 2A : Study habits would demonstrate a significant relation- in this manuscript, have significant relationships with
ship with SGPA. variables such as ability measured as ACT or SAT composite
H 2B : Study habits would demonstrate a significant relation- score (Covington, 1992; Lavin, 1965; Willingham, Lewis,
ship with CGPA. Morgan, & Ramist, 1990), motivation or drive measured
as the achievement striving dimension of type A behavior
(Nonis & Hudson, 2006; Spence, Helmreich, & Pred, 1987),
gender (Pascarella, 1985), race (Pascarella, 1985), course
Moderator Effect of Study Habits on the
load (Pascarella), and hours at work (Light, 2001; Strauss
Relationship Between Study Time and Academic
& Volkwein, 2002). Therefore, when testing the previous
Performance
hypotheses, an attempt was made to control for these
It may be too simple to assume that the quantity of time spent variables so that the analyses would detect true relationships
studying directly impacts academic performance without re- (and not relationships due to other extraneous variables
gard to other, more qualitative variables, such as motivation, such as ACT or motivation). In Figure 1, the hypothesized
ability, and study habits. There is theoretical and empirical relationships are illustrated by solid lines, and the control
evidence that performance is a multiplicative function of abil- variables are represented by a dotted line.
ity and motivation (Chan, Schmitt, Sacco, & DeShon, 1998;
Chatman, 1989; Pinder, 1984). For example, a student with
high ability but who lacks motivation would not perform METHOD
well. However, a student with high ability who is highly
motivated would be likely to excel. The variability in moti- Scale Development
vation across students may dampen the association between
In the absence of a reliable and valid scale to measure the
ability and performance. Similar to how motivation interacts
study habits of students, a modified version of a scale devel-
with ability to influence academic performance, behaviors
oped by Nonis, Relyea, and Hudson (2007) was employed.
such as study effort can interact with ability to influence per-
This scale used seven items that measure two different student
formance. In fact, Nonis and Hudson (2006) reported that
study habits: scheduling (e.g., scheduling regular review pe-
study effort operationalized as study time moderated the re-
riods) and ability to concentrate (e.g., ability to pay attention
lationship between ability and academic performance. They
in class). However, after seeking the expert opinion of several
found that the relationship between ability and student per-
college professors, five additional items were included in the
formance was stronger for students who spent more time
instrument to measure a third study habit: access to notes.
studying outside of class than for students who spent less.
The rationale was that students having access to a good set of
Using this line of reasoning, in the present study we proposed
notes was critical and also the starting point when learning
that study habits (as one aspect of quality of studying) would
or studying outside of class. Access to a good set of notes
also moderate the relationship between study time and stu-
would provide the student the focus and the direction.
dent performance. That is, the influence that the quantity of
Prior to using the modified instrument to test the three hy-
study time has on academic performance was expected to be
potheses, data were collected from 201 undergraduate busi-
stronger for students who use good study habits more often
ness students regarding their study habits (53.4% women;
compared to those students who use them less often. This
81% White; and M age = 25.4 years, SD = 3.86 years).
leads to the final two hypotheses.
First, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) was
H 3A : Study habits would moderate the relationship between assessed for the three study habits. For the two study
study time and academic performance (SGPA), in that habits—scheduling and ability to concentrate—all items
the influence study time has on performance (SGPA) demonstrated high item-to-total correlations and the relia-
would be more for students who use good study habits bility coefficients were .81 and .91, respectively, acceptable
232 S. A. NONIS AND G. I. HUDSON

Access to notes
Scheduling
Ability to concentrate H2A and H2B

H3A and H3B

Semester GPA
H
Time spent studying
H1A and H1B Cumulative GPA

Gender
Age
Race
Course load
Motivation
ACT composite
Time at work

FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework.

as per Nunnally (1978). Because of lower than acceptable ity for the revised instrument. The 10 items that measure
item-to-total correlations for the study habit dimension ac- the three study habits used in this study are provided in the
cess to notes, two items that measured this dimension were Appendix.
dropped from further analysis. The remaining items provided
an acceptable reliability coefficient for this dimension (.86)
as per Nunnally. Sample and Measures
Reliability analysis was followed by a confirmatory factor
The three hypotheses were tested using a fresh sample of 163
analysis using LISREL (8.3). Results showed all standard-
students (second sample) attending a medium-sized (more
ized coefficients between each of the three factors and the
than 10,000 students), Association to Advanced Collegiate
items that measured these factors to be high and significant
Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited state university
at the p < .05 level. These results, as well as model summary
in the South. Surveys were administered during a 2-week
information shown in Table 1, provided evidence of valid-
period in several capstone business strategy courses and a
few junior- and senior-level marketing and finance courses
(all courses were required courses) in which students re-
TABLE 1
Results From Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) sponded to questions related to how they allocate their time,
their study habits, motivation, and demographics. Junior- and
Model First sample (n = 201) Second sample (n = 163) senior-level courses were selected because at this level stu-
dents mostly take business courses, whereas at other levels
GFI .98 .97 they take business and nonbusiness courses. The key char-
AGFI .96 .94
CFI 1.00 1.00
acteristics of the sample were the following: major (24.5%
NFI .98 .97 finance, 22.7% marketing, 19.6% accounting, 17.2% man-
RMSEA .01 .00 agement, and the remainder business administration or com-
Chi square 17.69 28.92 puter information technology), marital status (73.6% single,
p .41 .62 10.4% married with children, 11.7% married but no children,
Note. GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit
and the remainder single with children), credit hours com-
index; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = pleted (112 credit hours), and course load (13.7 credit hours).
rood mean square error of approximation. Sample characteristics as they relate to gender, age, race, and
 PERFORMANCE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 233

TABLE 2 the three hypotheses were later tested. Six items from Spence
Demographic Characteristics et al.’s scale were used to measure students’ motivation. The
Students attending 4-year
reported coefficient alpha for this scale was high (.87) and
Characteristic public universities Present sample it has been used in several other similar studies (Carlson,
Bozeman, Kacmar, Wright, & McMahan, 2000).
Gender
Male 45.6% 47.9%
Female 54.4% 52.1% Data Analysis
Age (Median) 20–24 years 23 years
Race Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test hy-
White 77.9% 91% potheses H 1A through H 3B . All variables (control variables,
Other 22.1% 9% predictor variable, moderator variables, and outcome vari-
Employment
Not employed 56.8% 32.3%
ables) were standardized and centered to avoid the presence
Employed 43.2% 67.7% of multicollinearity when introducing interactive terms, as
suggested by Aiken & West (1991). In the regression anal-
Note. Public university student data obtained from Statistical Abstract yses, the control variables of ACT composite score, gender,
of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
race, academic load, age, time at work, and the achievement
striving dimension of Type A were entered first to partial
employment are provided in Table 2. The sample was com- out the variance in the dependent variable explained by these
parable to other students attending 4-year universities in the variables. The predictor variable study time (ST) was entered
United States in terms of gender and age, but some variations in the second step. In the third step, the moderator variables
were found for race and employment, as shown in Table 2. study skills (access to notes [SKN], scheduling [SKS], and
Respondents also reported their student identification ability to concentrate [SKC) were entered as a block. Fi-
number, which enabled the researchers to obtain pertinent nally, the three interaction terms between study time and
information, such as CGPA, SGPA, academic load during access to notes (ST × SKN), study time and scheduling (ST
the semester, highest ACT composite score, and the num- × SKS), and study time and ability to concentrate (ST ×
ber of credit hours completed from university records, rather SKC) were entered. Although the output from the second
than relying on self-reported data. This information was col- step tested hypotheses H 1A and H 1B , the output from the
lected once the students completed the semester in which third step tested hypotheses H 2A and H 2B . Finally, the out-
they participated in the survey. put from the fourth step in the regression analysis tested the
The two variables—the quantity of time students moderator hypotheses (H 3A and H 3B ). All hypotheses were
spent studying and the quantity of time students spent tested using a significance level of .05.
working—were calculated by taking the average of two re-
sponses. Students were required to estimate the amount of
time they spent on various activities during a typical day
(e.g., attending lectures, watching TV, working), including RESULTS
studying, such as preparing for classes, exams, quizzes, and
projects. This allowed students to think about how much time Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and bi-
they spent on their studies and work relative to all other ac- variate correlations for the study variables are provided in
tivities. Later in the survey, students were once again asked Table 3. As can be seen, all correlations were in the expected
how much time they spent studying, as well as working, but direction and all alpha reliability coefficients as shown in the
this time during a typical week. The responses to these two diagonal are acceptable, as per Nunnally (1978). Although
questions for study time and work time were divided by 7 to study time did not show any direct relationship with SGPA or
get the time spent studying per day and time spent at work. CGPA, time at work showed significant negative correlations
The study time per day for these two questions and the earlier with SGPA and CGPA. Also, the study habits of access to
two questions were averaged to get the average time spent notes and ability to concentrate demonstrated significant and
studying and working per day. positive relationships. However, the study habit of schedul-
Academic performance or the dependent variable was ing did not show a significant relationship with SGPA or
measured using two outcome variables, SGPA and CGPA. CGPA.
As stated earlier, SGPA and CGPA were obtained using uni- When running Hierarchical Regression using both perfor-
versity records once students completed the semester. mance variables SGPA and CGPA as dependent variables,
Finally, the present study also measured student motiva- the control variables of ACT composite score, achievement
tion by using the achievement striving dimension of Type striving dimension of Type A, and time at work were signif-
A behavior of college students. Since motivation impacts icant at the .05 level. When using CGPA as the dependent
academic performance (Spence et al., 1987), it was deemed variable, in addition to the three variables mentioned, age
necessary to measure this variable as a control variable when was also significant.
234 S. A. NONIS AND G. I. HUDSON

TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation Coefficients, and Reliability Coefficients

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 23.19 3.86 —

2. Achievement striving 3.51 0.69 .07 (0.80)
3. ACT composite score 22.64 4.06 −.12 .01 —
4. Study time 11.70 6.74 .17 .35 −.28 —
5. Time at work 20.46 17.30 .22 −.20 −.06 −.06 —
6. Access to notes 4.00 0.75 .01 .43 .18 .13 −.23 (0.74)
7. Scheduling 2.55 0.78 .26 .56 −.15 .43 .01 .24 (0.85)
8. Ability to concentrate 2.87 0.81 .20 .38 −.01 .11 −.14 .37 .39 (0.91)
9. SGPA 3.02 0.69 −.05 .34 .42 .01 −.36 .26 .01 .30 —
10. CGPA 3.10 0.53 −.21 .31 .53 −.05 −.40 .16 .06 .22 .79 —

Note. Reliability coefficients are shown within parenthesesAll correlations greater than .15 are statistically significant at the p = .05 level of significance.
SGPA = semester GPA; CGPA = cumulative GPA.

Results from the hierarchical multiple regression that H 2A investigated the relationships that study habits have
tested the first set of hypotheses are provided in Tables 4 with SGPA. As can be seen in Table 4, the ability to concen-
and 5. H 1A and H 1B tested the relationship that study time trate showed a significant positive relationship with SGPA
has with SGPA and CGPA. As can be seen in Tables 4 and (slope = .22, p < .05), but having access to a good set of
5, study time did not demonstrate a significant positive re- notes did not show a relationship with SGPA (slope = −.06,
lationship with SGPA (slope = .13, p > .05) a short-term p > .05). However, scheduling showed a significant but nega-
measure of performance or with CGPA (slope = .07, p > tive relationship with SGPA (slope = −.26, p < .05) that was
.05), a cumulative long-term measure of performance. Also, contrary to what was expected. These results, as well as the
the change in r2 was not significant and therefore these results significant change in r2 (6%), partially supported this hypoth-
did not provide support for H 1A or H 1B . esis, but the unexpected negative relationship that the study

TABLE 4 TABLE 5
Results From Hierarchical Regression Analysis When Results From Hierarchical Regression Analysis When
Semester GPA (SGPA) was the Dependent Variable Cumulative GPA (CGPA) was the Dependent Variable

Variable Slope coefficient R2 Variable Slope coefficient R2

∗ ∗
Step 1: Control variables .37 Step 1: Control variables .49
Race −.01 Race .06
Gender −.09 Gender −.01
∗ ∗
Achievement striving .31 Achievement striving .23
∗
Age −.02 Age −.26
Course load .13 Course load .01
∗ ∗
ACT composite .40 ACT composite score .48
∗ ∗
Time at work −.17 Time at work −.24
Step 2: Predictor variable .01 Step 2: Predictor variable .00
ST .13 ST .07
∗
Step 3: Moderator variables .06 Step 3: Moderator variables .02
SKN .06 SKN −.14
∗
SKS −.26 SKS −.02
∗
SKC .22 SKC .14†
∗ ∗
Step 3: Interaction terms .03 Step 4: Interaction terms .05
∗
ST × SKN −.12 ST × SKN −.16
ST × SKS −.01 ST × SKS −.08
∗
ST × SKC .17† ST × SKC .27
∗ ∗
Total R2 .47 Total R2 .56
∗ ∗
F 6.39 F 9.04

Note. ST = study time; SKN = access to notes; SKS = scheduling; Note. ST = study time; SKN = access to notes; SKS = scheduling;
SKC = ability to concentrate. SKC = ability to concentrate.
†p < .10. †p < .10.
∗ ∗
p < .05. p < .05.
 PERFORMANCE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 235

skill scheduling had with SGPA is subsequently explained in

the discussion section.
H 2B investigated the relationships that study habits
have with CGPA as a cumulative long-term measure of
performance and was also partially supported. Although the
study skills variables ability to concentrate (slope = .14,
p < .05) showed a significant positive relationship on CGPA,
neither scheduling (slope = −.02, p > .05), or having access
to a good set of notes (slope = −.14, p > .05) demonstrated
any significant relationships with CGPA. As indicated by the
significant change in r2 and the positive slope coefficient,
FIGURE 3 Interactive effects of study time and access to a good set of
results showed that the study habit of ability to concentrate notes cumulative GPA (CGPA).
impacted CGPA.
Results from the hierarchical multiple regression that
tested the hypothesis that study time has more of an im-
pact on academic performance for students who use good West’s (1991) procedure was used to construct Figure 3 to
study habits more often compared to students who use good better understand the impact of the interaction term. As can
study habits less often are also provided in Tables 4 and 5. be seen, results indicated that CGPA was higher for students
When performance was measured as SGPA, none of the in- who spent more time studying and reported having limited
teractions between the three study skills and study time were access to a good set of notes compared to students who spent
significant at the p < .05 level, even though the interaction more time studying and also had greater access to a good
between ability to concentrate and study time would have set of notes. This is in the opposite direction from what was
been significant at the p < .10 level. As such, hypothesis hypothesized and clearly needs some explanation, which is
H 3A was not supported. However, when performance was subsequently provided in the discussion section. Finally, the
measured as CGPA, the interaction between ability to con- interaction between scheduling and study time did not show
centrate and study time demonstrated a significant positive any significant influence on CGPA (slope = −.08, p > .05);
influence on CGPA (slope = .27, p < .05) as indicated by these results, as well as the significant increase in r2 (5%),
the slope coefficient. Also, as indicated by the sign of the partially supported hypothesis H 3B .
slope coefficients as well as the procedures stated by Aiken
and West (1991), results indicated that CGPA was higher for
students who spent more time studying and also scored high DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
for the effective study skill dimension (the ability to con-
centrate), compared to students who spent less time study- The purpose of this research was to determine (a) the relation-
ing and scored low for that dimension. This is illustrated in ship that study time has with academic performance, (b) the
Figure 2. relationship that different study habits have with academic
Although the interaction between having access to a good performance, and (c) moderator effects of study habits on the
set of notes and study time also demonstrated significant relationship between study time and academic performance,
influence on CGPA (slope = −.16, p < .05), this was in the after controlling for race, gender, achievement striving of
opposite direction from what was hypothesized as indicated Type A behavior, age, course load, ACT composite score,
by the negative slope coefficient. Once again the Aiken and and time at work. In the following paragraphs, an attempt is
made to discuss key study findings and their implications.
In terms of control variables, this study found both ACT
composite score and motivation measured as achievement
striving dimension of Type A behavior to be significant in-
fluences of academic performance measured as SGPA and
CGPA (Tables 4 and 5). Prior empirical evidence has pro-
vided mixed results about the relationship between time
at work and academic performance (Light, 2001; Nonis &
Hudson, 2006; Strauss & Volkwein, 2002), but results from
the present study showed significant negative relationships
among time at work and SGPA and CGPA. This finding sug-
gests that as time at work increases, academic performance
decreases. Age was also significant when CGPA was used as
FIGURE 2 Interactive effects of study time and ability to concentrate on the dependent variable, but none of the other control variables
cumulative GPA (CGPA). were significant.
236 S. A. NONIS AND G. I. HUDSON

Similar to results reported by several other researchers as significant parts of the course grade. They found cram-
(Nonis & Hudson, 2006; Schmidt, 1983), results from the mers’ grades were as good as or better than those students
present study did not demonstrate a significant direct rela- using other study tactics. In terms of the characteristics of
tionship between the amount of study time and academic per- crammers, they found these students to have been in college
formance as measured by SGPA or CGPA (H 1A and H 1B ). longer, studied more hours, and were also more interested
Lack of empirical support for this relationship seemed to in their studies. In most business courses and especially up-
indicate that the influence study time has on academic per- per level business courses, a student’s course grade is at
formance may be more complex than it is believed to be. least partially dependent on these kinds of indicators (i.e.,
One plausible explanation for the insignificant relationship research papers) and this could help to explain the nega-
can be the influence of a third variable, study habits (im- tive relationship. In fact, most students in this sample were
pact of a study habit as a moderator), as tested in H 3A and juniors or seniors taking upper level courses that involved
H 3B . application-type assignments that were done outside of class
Results from a hierarchical regression demonstrated that in almost all of their courses and thus supports this line of
the ability to concentrate significantly impacted SGPA (slope thinking.
= .22, p < .05). Clearly, those students who could pay at- The second unexpected result was the significant nega-
tention without their minds wandering off performed better tive interaction between study time and having access to a
in the short and long terms. Even if the relationship between good set of notes when using CGPA as the dependent vari-
ability to concentrate and CGPA was not statistically signif- able. As shown in Figure 3, the negative interaction indicated
icant, it was in the expected direction and would have been that CGPA was higher for those students who had access to
significant at p < .10 level. Because CGPA is a cumulative a good set of notes but spent less time studying compared
measure of student performance, some variation in this study to those students who also had access to set of good notes
habit during prior college years (some students, for various and also spent more time studying. Although results seemed
reasons, lose focus on academics and either drop out of col- counterintuitive, there is a logical explanation: Having access
lege or end up with low grades, but later, with a clearer focus, to a good set of notes while spending time studying only re-
do very well) could explain why this relationship was in the sults in higher grades if this time is spent efficiently. In fact,
expected direction but not statistically significant. we ran a post hoc hierarchical regression using CGPA as
As shown in Tables 4 and 5 as well as in Figure 2, the abil- the dependent variable, keeping all control, predictor, mod-
ity to concentrate also moderated the relationship between erator variables as well as the two-way interaction terms as
study time and academic performance. Study time had more independent variables. To this model, we introduced a new
of an impact on academic performance when the ability to three-way interaction term between access to a good set of
concentrate was high. Even if study time did not demonstrate notes, study time, and ability to concentrate (ability to con-
a direct relationship with performance (H 1A ), this shows that centrate as a surrogate for study effectiveness). The resulting
study time has a greater impact on performance, in the ex- three-way interaction (ST × SKN × SKC) was positive and
pected direction, but only under certain conditions—in this would have been significant at the p < .10 level (slope = .13),
instance when a student is able to concentrate. Study time which provides support for this rationale. Having access to a
has no impact on performance if a student is not actively good set of notes while spending time studying is shown to
concentrating or paying attention. In summary, the positive be more effective for those who use the time efficiently (e.g.,
influence that ability to concentrate has on academic per- concentrate).
formance as well as the differential impact that the variable In summary, results from the present study suggest that the
has on the relationship between study time and academic quantity of time spent studying has an influence on perfor-
performance are some of the key findings of the present mance, but that this influence is moderated by a third variable,
study. the study habits used by students. The ability to concentrate
Results from the present study also included two un- always influenced student performance in a positive way.
expected relationships between study habits and academic Also, study time had more of an influence on student perfor-
performance. First, the study-habit scheduling demonstrated mance when students were able to concentrate. Scheduling
a negative relationship with SGPA, implying that students or always trying to keep up with college work may not be
who waited until the last minute to study or work on their as important for all students in terms of their performance in
projects performed better than those students who used a the short term. Some students who did a poor job scheduling
more consistent approach in the short term. Even if this is performed well in the short term. Having access to a good set
contrary to popular belief, waiting until the last minute to of notes was important, but its influence on the relationship
meet a deadline may be an effective study strategy for some between study time and performance seemed to be dependent
students and certain courses and some empirical evidence on how the time was used. Results suggest that truly study-
can support this rationale. For example, Vacha (1993) re- ing may not simply be a quantity issue; there are qualitative
ported that cramming was an effective studying tactic for techniques, such as good study habits, that can make study
courses that use take-home essay exams and research papers time effective for students.
 PERFORMANCE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 237

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR sis of individual-level antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12,
FURTHER RESEARCH 271–287.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & DeShon, R. P. (1998). Understanding
pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests.
The present study was not without limitations. First, the study Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 471–485.
outcome was limited to academic performance. Investigating Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A
study time and study habits and what effect these variables model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,
have on actual learning could also provide good information 333–349.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on
for colleges especially at a time when some claim that grade
motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
inflation is at an all-time high (National Trends in Grade Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam perfor-
Inflation, American Colleges and Universities, 2003). Sec- mance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 29–44.
ond, the sampling frame used in this study reflected only one Didia, D., & Hasnat, B. (1998). The determinants of performance in the intro-
university in the United States. Future researchers should in- ductory finance courses. Financial Practice and Education, 8, 102–107.
Douglas, S., & Sulock, J. (1995). Estimating educational production func-
vestigate these study findings across a broader student popu-
tions with corrections for drops. Journal of Economic Education, 26,
lation before generalizations can be made. Third, time spent 101–112.
studying was measured by asking students to allocate the time Eley, M. G. (1992). Differential adoption of study approaches within indi-
spent on various activities during a typical day and a week. vidual students. Higher Education, 23, 231–254.
One drawback of this method is that it relies on student mem- Elias, R. Z. (2005). Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting
courses. Journal of Education for Business, 80, 194–199.
ory. Students could have been asked to keep a diary for a week
Gleason, J. P., & Walstad, W. B. (1988). An empirical test of an inventory
and asked to update it every day based on how they allocated model of study time. Journal of Economic Education, 17, 87–98.
time each day, but this method relies on students keeping up Haist, S. A., John, F., Elam, C. L., Blue, A., & Fosson, S. E. (2000). The
with the diary as they are required to do every day (Kember, effect of gender and age on medical school performance: An important
Jamieson, Pomfret, & Wong, 1995). Even with the limita- interaction. Advances in Health Science Education, 5, 197–205.
Higher Education Research Institute. (2003). The official press release for
tions that have been stated, results the present study provide
the American Freshmen 2002. Los Angeles: University of California.
empirical evidence as to why prior researchers might have re- Kember, D., Jamieson, Q. W., Pomfret, M., & Wong, E. T. (1995). Learning
ported mixed results for the relationship between study time approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education,
and academic performance and brings researchers closer to 29, 329–343.
better understanding the complicated nature of this important Krohn, G. A., & O’Conner, C. M. (2005). Student effort and performance
over semester. Journal of Economic Education, 36, 3–29.
relationship.
Lahmers, A. G., & Zulauf, C. (2000). The secret to academic success: Hours
and hours of study. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 545–554.
Lavin, D. (1965). The prediction of academic performance. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
REFERENCES Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2003). Is time pressure all bad? Measur- Lumsden, K. G., & Scott, A. (1987). The economic student re-examined:
ing between free time availability and student performance perceptions. Male-female differences in comprehension. Journal of Economic Educa-
Marketing Education Review, 12, 21–32. tion, 18, 365–375.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and inter- Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Academic effort and college grades.
preting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Social Forces, 68(1), 309–319.
Barling, J., & Charbonneau, D. (1992). Disentangling the relationship be- National Trends in Grade Inflation, American Colleges and Universi-
tween the achievement striving and impatience-irritability dimensions of ties. (2003). National trends in grade inflation. Grade inflation at
Type A behavior, performance, and health. Journal of Organizational American colleges and universities. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from
Behavior, 13, 369–377. http://www.gradeinflation.com/
Beatie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2006). Academic performance of college stu-
simple or simplistic dichotomy. Accounting Education, 6(1), 1–12. dents: Influence of time spent studying and working. Journal of Education
Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school for Business, 81, 151–159.
students’ performance on five integrated science process skills. Research Nonis, S. A., Philhours, M., & Hudson, G. I. (2006). Where does the time do?
in Science Technology Education, 19, 133–145. A diary approach to business and marketing students’ time use. Journal
Becker, W. E. (1997). Teaching economics to undergraduates. Journal of of Marketing Education, 28, 121–134.
Economic Literature, 35, 1347–1373. Nonis, S. A., Relyea, C., & Hudson, G. I. (2007). An exploratory investi-
Biggs, J. B. (1988). Approaches to learning and essay writing. In R. R. gation of the impact study time and study habits have on academic per-
Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 185–228). formance of college student. Proceedings of the AMA Winter Educators’
New York: Plenum. Conference, 18, 18–19.
Borg, A., Mason, P. M., & Shapiro, S. L. (1989). The case of effort variables Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
in student performance. Journal of Economic Education, 20, 308–313. Okpala, A. O., Okpala, C. O., & Ellis, R. (2000). Academic effort and study
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self- habits among college students in principles of macroeconomics. Journal
efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high- of Education for Business, 75, 219–224.
school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, Paden, N., & Stell, R. (1997). Reducing procrastination through assignment
14, 153–164. and course design. Marketing Education Review, 7(Summer), 17–25.
Carlson, D. S., Bozeman, D. P., Kacmar, M. K., Wright, P. M., & McMa- Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and
han, G. C. (2000). Training motivation in organizations: An analy- cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.),
238 S. A. NONIS AND G. I. HUDSON

Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1–61). New APPENDIX
York: Agathon.
Pinder, C. (1984). Work motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Items That Measure Study Habits and the Alpha
Schmidt, R. M. (1983). Who maximizes what? Study in student time allo-
cation. American Economic Review, 73, 23–28.
Reliability Coefficients
Schulman, P. (1999). Applying learned optimism to increase sales produc-
tivity. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19, 31–37.
Item
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987). Impatience versus
achievement strivings in the type-A pattern: Differential effects on stu-
Access to notes
dent’s health and academic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Take down good notes in class
72, 522–528.
Have access to a good set of notes to do homework or study for exam
Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2004). Time-use and college out-
Find it difficult to make much sense of the notes that was taken down in
comes. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 243–269.
class1
Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, F. J. (2002). Comparing student performance
and growth in 2- and 4-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, Scheduling
43, 133–161. Wait till the last minute to complete homework1
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2007. Wait till the last minute to get ready for an exam1
Washington, DC: Author. Complete homework and/or assignments at the last minute1
Vacha, E. F. (1993). Cramming: A barrier to student success, a way to beat Go over text and lecture notes the very same day it was covered
the system or an effectiuve learning strategy? College Student Journal, Ability to Concentrate
27(1), 2–11. Find it difficult to pay attention in class1
Willingham, W. W., Lewis, C., Morgan, R., & Ramist, L. (1990). Predicting Find the mind “wonder-off” (think of other things) in class1
college grades: An analysis of institutional trends over two decades. Find it difficult to concentrate in class1
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Wong, M. M. H. (2000). The relations among causality orientation, aca- 1Reverse-coded items.

demic experience, academic performance, and academic commitment. Responses varied between 1 “never” 2 “almost never” 3 “sometimes” 4
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 315–326. “fairly often” and 5 “very often”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats