This article was downloaded by: [University of Washington Libraries]On: 20 November 2014, At: 22:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Community College Journalof Research and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

UNDERPREPAREDCOMMUNITYCOLLEGE STUDENTS:CHARACTERISTICS,PERSISTENCE, ANDACADEMIC SUCCESSSue K. Grimes aa Office of Grants and Research , Gulf CoastCommunity College , Panama City, Florida, USAPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Sue K. Grimes (1997) UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITYCOLLEGE STUDENTS: CHARACTERISTICS, PERSISTENCE, AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS,Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21:1, 47-56, DOI:10.1080/1066892970210105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1066892970210105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied

upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENTS: CHARACTERISTICS, PERSISTENCE,AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS

Sue K. GrimesOffice of Grants and Research, Gulf Coast Community College, PanamaCity, Florida, USA

Academically underprepared community college students demonstrated a lowercourse completion rate, greater attrition, more text anxiety, and a more external locusof control than college-ready students, but they did not demonstrate differences ingrade point average (GPA), learning-study strategies, or self-esteem. Both college-ready and academically underprepared persisters achieved greater academic suc-cess, as measured by course completion rate and GPA, but reported lower generalself-esteem than did nonpersisters.

Research has documented the impact of inadequate academic prepara-tion on the attrition of college students (Abraham, 1992; Chancey &Farris, 1991; Losak, 1991); however, research has not provided a clearunderstanding of the personal and learning characteristics associatedwith this underpreparedness. Selectivity in admissions is the mostimportant predictor of retention at higher institutions, explaining 17%to 29% of the variation in retention rates (Chancey & Farris, 1991).Losak (1991) reported 3-year retention rates of 12% with 18% continuedenrollment for significantly underprepared students and of 46% with23% continued enrollment for university-eligible students. However,students who complete preparatory work demonstrate the same gradu-ation and continued enrollment rates as other students (Losak & Morris,1985).

Student factors associated with lower achievement at varied educa-tional levels include lower ability, poor study strategies (Levin & Levin,1991; Nist, Mealey, Simpson, & Kroc, 1990; Scott & Robbins, 1985),external locus of control (Findley & Cooper, 1983; Gadzella, Williamson,& Ginther, 1985; McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1986; Nelson &

Address correspondence to Sue K. Grimes, Gulf Coast Community College, Office ofGrants and Research, 5230 West U.S. Highway 98, Panama City, FL 32401-1041

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21:47-66, 1997Copyright © 1997 Taylor & Francis

1066-8926/97 $12.00+ .00 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 S. K. GRIMES

Phares, 1971; Ogden & Trice, 1986), and lower self-esteem (Gadzella etal, 1985; House, 1992; Jones & Watson, 1990; Tomlinson, 1989).

This study examined some of these factors, including student char-acteristics (age, gender, ethnicity), learning-study strategies, locus ofcontrol, self-esteem, and academic success (continued enrollment, coursecompletion, grade point average [GPA]) of college-ready and under-prepared community college students in an attempt to better under-stand the relationship of these variables to students' entry academicpreparation. At the beginning of the third semester, persisters werecompared with nonpersisters to identify characteristics associated withpersistence for both underprepared and college-ready students.

METHOD

Students

Data were collected for 140 recently admitted students at an open-admission community college with 8,000 students and a 15% minoritypopulation. The sample consisted of 91 underprepared students incollege success classes and 49 college-ready students in orientationclasses.

Test InstrumentsAssessments included the Multiple Assessment Program and Service(MAPS) test, the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), theAdult Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control, the Culture-Free Self Es-teem Inventory (SEI), Form AD, and a questionnaire reporting tutorialusage. The MAPS from the College Entrance Examination Board pro-vided entry measures of college readiness in reading, English, andmathematics.

The LASSI, a 77-item standardized, self-report inventory, measuresstudents' learning and study strategies and provides diagnostic, pre-scriptive information regarding strengths and weaknesses. Ten scaleson the LASSI measure attitude-interest, motivation-self-discipline,time management, anxiety, concentration, information processing, mainidea selection, study aids utilization, self testing, and test strategies.Five of these scales examine affective or self-management areas, andthe remaining scales examine cognitive processing. Coefficient alphasfor the scales range from .68 for study aids to .86 for time management(Weinstein, Schutte, & Palmer, 1987).

The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control provides a overall measureof a student's expectation about whether the results of one's actions areinternal (under one's control) or external (beyond one's control). Nowicki

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS 49

and Strickland (1970) reported test-retest correlations from .67 to .81and internal consistency reliabilities from .63 to .79. Individuals withan internal locus of control analyze situations, assume responsibility fortaking action, and accept responsibility for failure. Individuals with anexternal locus of control view luck, fate, or powerful individuals ascontrolling events in their lives and project blame on others or outsideevents.

The Culture-Free SEI, Form AD, a 40-item self-report inventory,measures an individual's perception of his or her own worth and pro-vides scores on four subscales: (a) General Self-Esteem (confidence,happiness, self-worth, and success measured against the individual'sexpectations), (b) Social Self-Esteem (interactions with other people andevaluation of others' perceptions), (c) Personal Self-Esteem (personalcharacteristics and self-perception), and (d) Lie (defensiveness andprobability of honest responses). Battle (1981) reported subscale alphacoefficients of .78 for General Self-Esteem, .57 for Social Self-Esteem,.72 for Personal Self-Esteem, and .54 for Lie. Test-retest correlationsfor all participants were .81.

Procedure

Learning strategies, locus of control, and self-esteem data were collectedin orientation classes for general students and college success classesfor under-prepared students. Student data—including age, ethnicity,gender, placement test scores, hours attempted, hours completed, andGPA-were obtained from the student database.

I analyzed LASSI subscores, placement test subscores, self-esteemsubscores, and locus of control by means of multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) with academic preparation, gender, age (tradi-tional age <25 years, nontraditional age >25 years), ethnicity, andpersistence included in the models. A multifactor analysis of covariance,using hours attempted as the covariate, was used to evaluate hourscompleted, and MANOVA was used to analyze GPA with academicpreparation, gender, age, ethnicity, and persistence included in themodels. I used third-semester enrollment as the measure of persistencein order to cover the period where historically much attrition hasoccurred.

RESULTS

Learning, self-esteem, and locus of control differences were found byacademic preparation, gender, age, and ethnicity. College-ready stu-dents demonstrated a more internal locus of control, F(l, 139) = 4.42, p

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

50 S. K. GRIMES

= .037; lower test anxiety, F(l, 139) = 7.05,p = .009; and a greater coursecompletion rate, F(l, 139) = 12.63, p = .001. Women demonstratedstronger English placement scores, F(l, 133) = 9.85, p = .002, andstronger study strategies in attitude-interest;F(l, 139) = 12.41,p = .006;motivation-self-discipline, F(l, 139) = 5.5, p = .02; study aids use, F(l,139) = 13.86, p = .0003; and test review, F(l, 139) = 6.96, p = .009; aswell as greater test anxiety, F(l, 139) = 5.77,p = .03, and lower personalself-esteem, F(l, 139) = 9.04, p = .002. Nontraditional students demon-strated higher LASSI scores on attitude, F(l, 139) = 12.78, p = .0005,motivation-self-discipline, F(l, 139) = 21.18, p = .0001; time manage-ment, F(l, 139) = 16.21, p = .0001; concentration, F(l, 139) = 21.18, p =.0004; reasoning, F(l, 139) = 9.48, p = .0025; and test review, F(l, 139)= 8.20, p = .005. Ethnic differences included lower placement scores forAfrican American students on English, F(2, 133) = 5.51, p = .005;reading, F(2, 133) = 15.46, p = .0001; and math. Only 27% of theCaucasian students compared with 41% of the African American stu-dents placed in precollege mathematics, based on a battery of tests.

Students enrolling a third semester and college-ready students dem-onstrated greater academic success. Underprepared students demon-strated less persistence with second-semester completion andthird-semester reenrollment rates of 64% and 47%, respectively, com-pared with 79% and 61% for college-ready students, respectively. Thenumber of semester hours completed, controlling for the hours at-tempted, was greater for persisters, F(l, 139) = 23.02,p < .0001, duringthe first semester and for both persisters, F(l, 139) = 45.99, p < .0001,and college-ready students, F(l, 139) = 12.63,p = .001, during the secondsemester. In addition, persisters were lower on self-esteem, F(l, 139) =9.24, p = .003; however, they did not differ on LASSI subscores, place-ment scores, locus of control, or other self-esteem measures.

GPA differences were found for persistence, F(l, 128) = 13.28, p =.0004, and age F(l, 128) = 4.14, p = .04, with a significant interactionwith academic preparation and gender, F(l, 128) = 5.73, p = .02. Themean GPA of persisters was 2.95 compared with 2.29 for nonpersisters.The mean GPA of nontraditional students was 3.0 compared with 2.5for traditional students. The mean GPA for college-level women was 3.0;for underprepared men and women, 2.6; and for college-level men, 2.2.The second-semester GPA was not used in the analysis because exten-sive withdrawals caused it to be a misleading statistic.

Among underprepared students, the remedial course passing rateswere 58%, 55%, and 44% in reading, English, and mathematics,respectively, for nonpersisters compared with 88%, 77%, and 50%,respectively, for persisters. Use of free tutorial services for under-prepared students was generally low at 31% and 26% with overall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS 51

semester means of 7.1 and 4.7 hours for persisters and nonpersisters,respectively.

DISCUSSION

Academic Preparedness

Underprepared and college-ready students differed in locus of control,test anxiety, course completion, and attrition, but they did not differ inlearning strategies or self-esteem. Underprepared students demon-strated a more external locus of control, indicating a perception of lesscontrol over their environment and less responsibility for taking action.Externality may contribute to lower achievement, or negative externalfactors may contribute to externality, anxiety, and lower achievement.Those with external locus of control exhibit lower expectations in achiev-ing goals (Nelson et al., 1971) and more anxiety (Strassberg, 1973). Incontrast, those with internal locus of control demonstrate a positiverelationship with academic achievement for college students (Findley &Cooper, 1983). Locus of control may be more important than academicself-concept in predicting academic achievement (Wilhite, 1989).

Gender and Age

Although course completion and retention were lower for under-prepared students, more learning strategies differences were found bygender and age than by academic preparation. Women were higher inself-management (interest, motivation, time management), test anxi-ety, and English placement tests, but lower in personal self-esteem.Although women demonstrated stronger study strategies, they fre-quently demonstrated slower progress and noncontinuous enrollment,which makes them a high risk for attrition (Robertson, 1991). In con-trast, men represented a risk in academic achievement as a result ofstudy difficulties, lower interest, and lower grades (Watkins & Hattie,1981). Nontraditional students demonstrated higher scores in bothcognitive and noncognitive study areas, including interest, motivation,time management, concentration, reasoning, and test review. Althoughthey demonstrated stronger study strategies, they exhibited many ex-ternal attrition factors (Bean & Metzner, 1985).

Ethnicity

African American students demonstrated lower placement scores withcollege-level readiness of 59%, 62%, and 60% in math, writing, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 S. K. GRIMES

reading, respectively, compared with 81%, 87%, and 88%, respectively,for Caucasian students. Despite differences in entry skills, AfricanAmerican students did not demonstrate higher attrition as previouslyreported (Astin, 1982; Sedlacek & Pelham, 1976) and as specificallyreported with predominately White institutions (Sedlacek & Webster,1978). Academic ability is not related to persistence for either AfricanAmerican or Caucasian students; however, positive self-concept, realis-tic self-appraisal, and academic familiarity have been related to persis-tence for African American students (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985).

Although this study focused on specific student characteristics, otherprecollege student and family characteristics and at-college predictorsare also important. Levin and Levin (1991), in their synthesis of re-search on retention programs for at-risk minority students, suggestedthat important student characteristics include (a) academic under-preparedness, including study skills; (b) adaptability; (c) educationalgoals; (d) assistance-seeking; (e) self-confidence; and (f) motivation forcollege attendance. Significant family characteristics include socioeco-nomic status and educational level as well as parental expectation andinfluence (Tinto, 1975). At-college experiences may be more criticalretention factors (Levin & Levin, 1991) with quality interaction withfaculty the most significant factor in minority retention (Astin, 1985).

Academic Success and Persistence

Nonpersisters, both college-ready and underprepared, demonstrated alower course completion rate, lower GPA, and higher general self-esteem, and underprepared nonpersisters obtained a lower passing ratein remedial courses. The complexity of self-esteem and self-concept andtheir situational nature make the relationship between low generalself-esteem and persistence difficult to interpret. Academic self-concepthas been described in a hierarchical model with subcategories of verbalor math self-concept. Other models describe internal comparisons ofperceived ability on different measures or external comparisons withothers in their social group (Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1985). Manystudents compare themselves with their social group, which may notvalue academic performance as highly as appearance, athletic ability,sociability, or other attributes.

Some research has suggested that higher academic self-concept andachievement expectancies are related to college persistence (House,1992), and low self-esteem is related to underestimates of grades (Mor-rison & Morrison, 1978). However, Bachman and O'Malley (1986) foundno relationship after 6 years between academic self-concept in highschool and later educational attainment. In a synthesis of research on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS 53

high-risk college students, Jones and Watson (1990) described a processin which underpreparedness, poor study habits, and low self-esteemcombine with systemic forces (negative teacher attitudes, ethnocentricenvironments) to foster a self-perpetuating cycle of anxiety, passivity,and nonadaptive behavior. In contrast, a need-deficiency model wouldsuggest that individuals with lower self-esteem may view their abilityto compete in the world as limited and may, therefore, be more persis-tent in pursuing an education to improve their self-esteem and theircareer options. This view is consistent with Covington and Beery's(1976) self-worth model of motivation, which suggests that the drivingforce of academic motivation is the maintenance of self-worth.

Implications

These results suggest an important positive relationship between locusof control and academic preparation for underprepared students. Al-though locus of control is closely related to other motivational andachievement models, such as attribution theory and self-efficacy, it is aone-dimensional personality model. In contrast, attributional theoriesare situational and less stable, as perceived causes of success and failureinfluence future expectations (Weiner, 1985). Bandura's (1982) self-efficacy theory is also situational and suggests a student's confidenceabout performance ability is related to a specific domain (McKeachie etal., 1986).

Issues of causality, stability, and controllability in these academicmotivation and achievement models are important for institutions plan-ning interventions with underprepared students. Although locus ofcontrol lacks the dynamic perspectives of some of the other models, itprovides significant information regarding student perceptions andacademic achievement. Students with internal locus of control believethey can influence their environment (Rotter, 1966), so they acquire anduse academic information more effectively, which results in higheracademic achievement (Prociuk & Breen, 1977). Externality may con-tribute to lower academic achievement or may result from uncontrollednegative life circumstances that contribute to lower achievement. Selig-man (1975) proposed the term learned helplessness to describe thosewith extreme external locus of control who give up in face of theperception of no control. Some students use a self-defense tendency toview positive outcomes as internal and negative outcomes as external.Institutions must reduce learned helplessness and strong externality inhigh-risk students and foster the development of a greater sense ofownership and personal responsibility for academic achievement in a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

54 S. K. GRIMES

time when personal responsibility is not a popular concept in legal oreducational issues.

REFERENCES

Abraham, A. (1992). College remedial studies: Institutional practices in theSREB states. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving excellence in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1986). Self-concepts, self-esteem, andeducational experiences: The frog pond revisited (again). Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 50, 35-46.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psy-chologist, 37, 122-147.

Battle, J. (1981). Culture-free SEI self-esteem inventories for children and adults.Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditionalstudent attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485-540.

Chancey, B., & Farris, E. (1991). Survey on retention at higher educationinstitutions (Higher Education Abstracts No 14). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.

Covington, M., & Beery, R. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Findley, M., & Cooper, H. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement:A review of the literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,419-427.

Gadzella, B. M., Williamson, J. D., & Ginther, D. W. (1985). Correlations ofself-concept with locus of control and academic performance. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 61, 639-645.

House, J. D. (1992). The relationship between academic self-concept, achieve-ment related expectancies, and college attrition. Journal of College StudentPersonnel, 33, 5-10.

Jones, D. J., & Watson, B. C. (1990). "High risk" students in higher education:Future trends (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3). Washington,DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (1991). A critical examination of academic retentionprograms for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 32, 323-334.

Losak, J. (1991). What Constitutes Student Success in Community College(update). Miami: Miami-Dade Community College, Office for InstitutionalResearch.

Losak, J., & Morris, C. (1985). Comparing treatment effects for students whosuccessfully complete college preparatory work (Report No. 85-35). Miami:Miami-Dade Community College, Office of Institutional Research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS 55

Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional self-concept:Relations with sex and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 77, 581-596.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. F. (1986). Teachingand learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. AnnArbor: University of Michigan.

Morrison, T. L., & Morrison, R. L. (1978). Self-esteem, need for approval, andself-estimates of academic performance. Psychological Reports, 43, 503-507.

Nelson, P. C, & Phares, E. J. (1971). Anxiety discrepancy need values andexpectancy and internal-external control. Psychological Reports, 28, 663-668.

Nist, S. L., Mealey, D. L., Simpson, M. L., & Kroc, R. (1990). Measuring theaffective and cognitive growth of regularly-admitted and developmentalstudents using the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). Read-ing Research and Instruction, 30(1), 44-49.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1970). A locus of control scale. Unpublishedmanuscript, Emory University.

Ogden, E. P., & Trice, A. D. (1986). The predictive validity of the Academic Locusof Control scale for college students: Freshmen outcomes. Journal of SocialBehavior and Personality, 4, 649-652.

Prociuk, T. J., & Breen, L. J. (1977). Internal-external locus of control andinformation-seeking in a college academic situation. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 101, 309-310.

Robertson, D. L. (1991). Gender differences in the academic progress of adultundergraduates: Patterns and policy implications. Journal of College Stu-dent Development, 32, 490-496.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external controlof reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.

Scott, K. J., & Robbins, S. B. (1985). Goal instability: Implications for academicperformance among students in learning skills courses. Journal of CollegeStudent Personnel, 26, 129-133.

Sedlacek, W. E., & Pelham, J. C. (1976). Minority admissions to large institu-tions: A national survey. Journal of Non-White Concerns in Personnel andGuidance, 4, 53-63.

Sedlacek, W. E., & Webster, D. W. (1978). Admission and retention of minoritystudents in large universities. Journal of College Student Personnel, 19,242-248.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depressions, development, anddeath. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Strassberg, D. S. (1973). Relationships among locus of control, anxiety, andvalued-good expectations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,41, 319.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis ofrecent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tomlinson, L. M. (1989). Post-secondary developmental programs: A traditionalagenda with new imperatives (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3).Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

56 S. K. GRIMES

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1985). The relationship of noncognitivevariables to academic success: A longitudinal comparison by race. Journal ofCollege Student Personnel, 26, 405-410.

Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian universitystudents: Investigations of contextual and personalogical factors. AppliedPsychological Measurement, 51, 384-393.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation andemotion. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 548-573.

Weinstein, C. E., Schutte, A. C., & Palmer, D. P. (1987). LASSI, learning andstudy strategies inventory, users manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H.

Wilhite, S. C. (1989). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memoryability, and study activities as predictors of college course achievement. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, No-vember, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reprint Service No. ED 317 972)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ashi

ngto

n L

ibra

ries

] at

22:

41 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014