Contemporary Educationa
Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 (2005) 96–116
www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych
Why study time does not predict grade point average across college
students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance
E. Ashby Plant*, K. Anders Ericsson, Len Hill, Kia Asberg
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1270, USA
Available online 14 August 2004
Abstract
The current work draws upon the theoretical framework of deliberate practice in order to
clarify why the amount of study by college students is a poor predictor of academic perfor-
mance. A model was proposed where performance in college, both cumulatively and for a cur-
rent semester, was jointly determined by previous knowledge and skills as well as factors
indicating quality (e.g., study environment) and quantity of study. The findings support the
proposed model and indicate that the amount of study only emerged as a significant predictor
of cumulative GPA when the quality of study and previously attained performance were taken
into consideration. The findings are discussed in terms of the insights provided by applying the
framework of deliberate practice to academic performance in a university setting.
� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Grade point average; Study time; Academic performance; Deliberate practice; Study habits
0361-476X/$ – see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.06.001
* Corresponding author. Fax: 1-850-644-7739.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.A. Plant).
E.A. Plant et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 (2005) 96–116 97
1. Introduction
The total amount of time that students report studying has often been examined
as a potential predictor of success in school. It might seem that the more time that
students spend studying, the better grades they should receive. Although students should increase their personal knowledge and skills by increasing the amount of time
that they spend on relevant study activities, the relationship between the amount of
study and achievement across students is less clear. Indeed researchers have consis-
tently found a weak or unreliable relationship between the weekly amount of re-
ported study time and grade point average (GPA) for college students (Allen,
Lerner, & Hinrichsen, 1972; Beer & Beer, 1992; Gortner Lahmers & Zulauf, 2000;
Hinrichsen, 1972; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Schuman, Walsh, Olson, & Etheridge,
1985; Wagstaff & Mahmoudi, 1976).1
The most extensive study conducted on the issue, by Schuman et al. (1985) pro-
vides compelling evidence that ‘‘there is at best only a very small relationship be-
tween amount of studying and grades’’ (p. 945). In one of their studies, they
found a weak, yet reliable relationship between reported study time and grades in
the corresponding semester, but this relationship disappeared when students� SAT scores were statistically controlled. Schuman et al. (1985) argued that grades in col-
lege are primarily determined by aptitude measures, such as SAT, and attendance at
lectures and classes. Subsequent investigators largely accepted the findings of Schuman et al. (1985)
but questioned the generalizability of the findings across educational contexts (Mi-
chaels & Miethe, 1989) and student populations (Rau & Durand, 2000). In their
study, Michaels and Miethe (1989) found a small (r = .18, p < .01) relationship be-
tween reported study and GPA, which remained after controlling for a number of
background variables, such as high school rank, attendance, and reported study hab-
its. They also found that studying ‘‘without listening to radio and television (no
noise)’’ predicted higher GPA. Rau and Durand (2000) argued that Schuman et al.�s (1985) findings were the result of their sample of undergraduates from the University of Michigan, which they posited are not representative of students in
most large state universities. For example, they found that the students at University
of Michigan reported studying an average of 25h/week, whereas Illinois State Uni-
versity (ISU) students reported only 8h/week (but see Schuman, 2001). Although
Rau and Durand (2000) found that the amount of study was reliably related to
GPA (r = .23, p < .001) for an ISU sample, the real benefits were only seen for stu-
dents studying over 14h/week (about 25% of the ISU students). Rau and Durand (2000) devised a variable of ‘‘academic ethic’’ to identify students who were commit-
ted to studying, which also predicted GPA, after controlling for high-school grades
and scholastic aptitude (ACT) scores.
1 For the current literature review, we chose to focus on research that used official records of GPA as
opposed to self-reported GPA and that used samples of regular college students and not pre-selected
special populations.
98 E.A. Plant et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 (2005) 96–116
1.1. Deliberate practice and performance
In trying to understand the small or unreliable relationship between study time
and GPA, it may be helpful to consider the emerging literature on deliberate prac-
tice. Research into deliberate practice indicates that the amount of high quality prac- tice accumulated during individuals� careers is closely related to their attained performance in a wide range of domains (e.g., Ericsson, 2002; Ericsson & Lehmann,
1996). Studies of the acquisition of expert performance have shown that extensive
experience is necessary for individuals to attain high levels of reproducibly superior
performance in the domain of expertise (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Simon &
Chase, 1973). However, all experiences are not equally helpful and there are qualita-
tive differences between activities loosely referred to as ‘‘practice’’ in their ability to
improve performance. There are clear limits on the benefits of experience. For example, many people
know recreational golf and tennis players whose performance has not improved in
spite of 20–30 years of active participation. The mere act of regularly engaging
in an activity for years and even decades does not appear to lead to improvements
in performance, once an acceptable level of performance has been attained (Ericsson,
2002). For example, if someone misses a backhand volley during a tennis game, there
may be a long time before the same person gets another chance at that same type of
shot. When the chance finally comes, they are not prepared and are likely to miss a similar shot again. In contrast, a tennis coach can give tennis players repeated oppor-
tunities to hit backhand volleys that are progressively more challenging and eventu-
ally integrated into representative match play. However, unlike recreational play,
such deliberate practice requires high levels of concentration with few outside dis-
tractions and is not typically spontaneous but carefully scheduled (Ericsson, 1996,
2002). A tennis player who takes advantage of this instruction and then engages
in particular practice activities recommended by the teacher for a couple of hours
in deeply focused manner (deliberate practice), may improve specific aspects of his or her game more than he or she otherwise might experience after many years of rec-
reational play.
Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) proposed that the acquisition of ex-
pert performance was primarily the result of the cumulative effect of engagement in
deliberate-practice activities where the explicit goal is to improve particular aspects
of performance. These activities are typically designed by a teacher or by the elite
performers themselves when they have reached a sufficiently high level of mastery.
The specific goals of deliberate practice and the detailed nature of training activities will differ for a given person from practice session to practice session as it will from
one person to another in a given domain and particularly across domains. However,
the general goal of all forms of deliberate practice involves improving some aspect of
performance in an effective manner and, thus, deliberate practice has a number of
pre-requisites, including the capacity to sustain full concentration, a distraction-free
environment, and access to necessary training resources. Hence to engage in deliber-
ate practice the aspiring elite performers often need to travel to a training facility and
to schedule the practice activity to assure the ability to sustain concentration during
E.A. Plant et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 (2005) 96–116 99
the daily practice activity (Ericsson, 1996, 2002, 2003a). Ericsson et al. (1993) and
Ericsson (1996, 2002, 2003a) demonstrated that the attained level of an individual�s performance is closely related to the reported amount of deliberate practice, primar-
ily solitary practice focused on improvement, that he or she has accumulated since
the introduction to a domain, such as chess (Charness, Krampe, & Mayr, 1996), sports (Ericsson, 2001, 2003a, 2003b; Helsen, Starkes, & Hodges, 1998; Starkes, Dea-
kin, Allard, Hodges, & Hayes, 1996), and music (Ericsson et al., 1993; Krampe &
Ericsson, 1996; Lehmann & Ericsson, 1996; Sloboda, 1996).
In studies of college education, similar evidence has been accumulated for differ-
ential effectiveness of various learning activities. Inspired by Craik and Tulving�s (1975) classic work on depth of processing, Schmeck and Grove (1979) found that
college students with above average GPAs differed from students with below average
grades in their reports of cognitive processes mediating th
