1.

Introduction

The close relationship between study habit and the performance of students in the examination
has been revealed by many studies1. The study habit, however, along with the preference for the
preparation of an academic examination varies between students. Some work hard during the
semester, reviewing the lessons regularly after the lectures to reinforce the knowledge they have
gained, while the others, on the other hand, are fond of laying their work aside until the very last
few days before the test. This variation is as well popular among the students at Hanoi
University. Our paper is therefore designed to provide an overview of the differences in the study
habit of Hanoi University students by comparing the learning styles and preference for test
preparation between K2009 students at the Faculty of Management and Tourism (FMT) and the
ones at the English Department, Hanoi University. Further implications are also discussed
concerning whether the differences may result in varied levels of academic performance. The
project is believed to be of importance to the students and teachers at the two departments in
particular, and other readers interested in the topic.

This research project is set up to answer two questions:

- Does the proportion of second-year FMT students doing revisions regularly during the
semester exceed that of the second-year students at the English Department?
- Is the proportion of second-year FMT students preparing far in advance for their
examinations smaller than that of the second-year students at the English Department?

We conducted the hypothesis testing process using the z-test for comparing two proportions. The
simple random sampling method was utilized. Accordingly, 50 students from K2009 were
randomly selected from each of the two faculties to be surveyed. After the tests were completed,
we had enough statistical evidence to support a "Yes" answer to the first research question but
not enough evidence to provide aother "Yes" to the second one.

1
The recent study (Nonis & Hudson 2010) found that as there is increasingly overwhelming evidence
showing that students are devoting less time to their studies, it is critical for educators who desire to
encourage and motivate their students to engage in productive study behavior to consider the relationship
between study habit and their students’ performance. The results showed that some study habits had a
positive direct relationship on student performance but others had a negative direct relationship.
2. Research methodology

2.1. Population and sample

Our project is conducted to compare the study habit of K2009 FMT students and the second-year
English students and their trends in preparing for an academic examination. The populations of
interest therefore are all K2009 students of Faculty of Management and Tourism and all K2009
students of English Department. Two random samples taken from the two populations have the
same size of 50 students. All of our calculations are carried out on these two samples to later
make statistical inference about the population of second-year FMT students and English
students.

2.2. Questionnaire design

This research paper is based on primary source of data obtained by conducting a survey. The
questionnaire consists of two sections with a total of only four questions. These questions were
carefully designed to generate the maximum amount of useful information from the participants.

The first two questions, along with the respondent’s contact detail section, identify the
population and the course (2009) that the student belongs to. The third question belonging to the
other section is a further step that helps get the information on the student’s habit of doing
revision after class. Basing on this question’s result, we would be, to a certain extent, able to
work out the different study habits between the two groups. The final question examines how far
in advance the student prepares for an academic test. The responses the fourth question were
later categorized into 2 groups: students who work hard during the semester and therefore have a
lighter workload before an examination (group 1) than those taking it easy during the term and
save all the work for the rest few days before the test (group 2). The results of the third and
fourth questions were inputted to conduct the hypothesis tests and answer the two research
questions stated earlier.

2.3. Sample size

As the two populations of interests – the K2009 FMT students and the second-year English
students – consist of 359 and 259 students respectively, we chose the same sample size of 50 for
both samples. This figure accounts for more than 10% of the number of members in both
populations, ensuring an acceptable level of reliability for a general social study. Furthermore, as
constrained by the time and a rather small number of members, our project group propose that
the sample of 50 members be the most appropriate size.

2.4. Sampling method & Data collection

2.4.1. Sampling method

With the aim of providing the same chance of being selected for any students from each of the
two populations – FMT students K2009 and English Department students K2009, the simple
random sampling method is employed.

For the population of all K2009 FMT students, we assigned a number in the interval from 1 to
359 to each member. Microsoft Excel is then utilized to generate a random number. We obtained
0.040, multiplied it by 1000 and came up with the number 40. Accordingly, the member coded
40 was selected. Similarly, the number 0.369 was generated, which corresponded to the 369th
member. However our list only consists of numbers from 1 to 359, we thus had to generate
another random number until we gathered enough 50 different students selected from the
population of all K2009 FMT students. The same process was repeated for the other population -
all K2009 English Department students, in which the students were numbered from 1 to 259.

Unexpectedly, some of the students whom we planned to interview refused to fill in the
questionnaire, and some others could not be contacted. We therefore had to randomly choose
other members excluding those previously selected by reusing Microsoft Excel so that exactly 50
students from each population were questioned.

2.4.2. Data collection

8 out of 9 group members were divided into two smaller groups so as to more easily perform the
data collection process. 4 members were in charge of distributing the questionnaires to selected
second-year students in FMT while the other 4 were responsible for the sophomores in English
Department. All questions and options were explained thoroughly to ensure that the
misunderstanding and confusion over the questionnaire were kept to a minimum. The responses
were collected right after the participants had completed the questionnaire. The data were then
recorded using Microsoft Excel, organized and presented in the form of graphs and charts. In
 light of the data, the whole group cooperated to deal with the hypothesis testing process and the
related discussions and analysis.

2.5. Data processing

The data for the tests were all calculated manually as we desired to reduce the errors occurring in
the process of inputting the information into the computer. Since the sample size is rather small
and the questions asked were few and simple, it was possible and even efficient to handle the
data by hand. Because the data are qualitative, we could not obtain any numerical value such as
mean, mode or median, except the proportion of successes.

2.6. Level of significance

Since α defines the probability of making a Type I error, we would like it to be as small as
possible. Unfortunately, there is an inverse relationship between Type I and Type II error, that is,
any decrease in Type I results in an increase in Type II. In our project, which is a social research,
the specific significance level of the test was determined at 5%. If there exist any errors of the
test, they would be less likely to result in serious consequences.

3. Descriptive results and findings

3.1. The proportion of students reviewing the lesson right after the lecture.

Yes
FMT students No ED students
24%

48%

52%

76%

Figure 1: Do students often review the lesson right after the lecture?

The figure 1 reveals the difference in the habit of reviewing lessons between the two samples of
K2009 FMT students and K2009 ED students. In general, the proportion of surveyed FMT
students reviewing lessons regularly overwhelmingly exceeds that of ED students. Specifically,
the percentage of “yes” answers among FMT respondents is 48%, as opposed to 24% for ED
ones. It could be inferred from these figures that the FMT students appear to do more revision
after class than the members of English Department.

3.2. The preparation of students for the final exam

Students’ responses to our question: How far in advance do you study for the final test? are
illustrated in the Figure 2. As can be seen from the bar chart, the majority of the questioned
students in both faculties allocate one week for their exam preparation. Among the rest, the
percentage of FMT students working hard during the semester makes up 12%, doubling the
figure for ED students (6%). Up to 10% of ED students confessed not to prepare for the exam,
compared with only 2% of students of FMT. It can be said that the students from both
departments have rather identical preference for the preparation of the examination, with a very
great percent of students from both groups using their last one week to prepare for their
examination. However, as presented earlier, the proportion of FMT members studying
thoroughly in the semester is exactly twice as much as that of English students, which may be a
proof to support the belief that K2009 FMT students work harder during the term than do
English students. That the number of surveyed English students having no preparation for a test
is five times as large as the number of FMT students sharing the same trend further solidifies the
idea.
 60

50

40
FMT
30 students
20 ED
students
10

0
Already 1 week 3 days 1 day No
learnt revision

Figure 2: How far in advance students prepare for the final exam

In order to make it convenient for our test statistics, we deliberately grouped these responses into
2 categories, namely: greater or equal to one week and less than or equal to 3 days.

70

60

50
Time for exam
40 preparation of FMT
students
30 Time for exam
preparation of ED
20
students
10

0
≥ 1 week ≤3 days

Figure 3: The preference for exam preparation of students

On the whole, there is no considerable difference in the preference of students for exam
preparation among students of two faculties. Most of them have the tendency of spending at least
one week studying for the exam. As illustrated in the bar chart, the proportion of “more than or
equal to one week” in both faculties is significantly greater than the proportion of “less than or
equal to 3 days”.

4. Hypothesis testing

4.1. Research question

Our research aims at two objectives: the first one is to show that the proportion of the population
of K2009 FMT students who review the lesson regularly after class is greater than that of the
population of K2009 ED students. The other one aims at testing whether there are more students
from K2009 ED than their K2009 FMT counterparts spending at least one week preparing for an
academic test.

In detail, the test hypothesis is employed to examine the claim’s accuracy. The test results will be
used to conclude whether or not the null hypotheses would be rejected.

4.2. Assumptions

To make the test results valid, some restrictions were applied as follow:

4.2.1. The first objective

• There are two categorical outcomes:

The first one is success which represents the proportion of FMT sophomores reviewing the
lesson right after the lecture and the proportion of K2009 ED students who review the lesson
right after the lecture.

Inversely, the second outcome symbolizes the rate of FMT 2 nd year students who do not review
the lesson right after the lecture and the proportion of K2009 ED students who do not review the
lesson right after the lecture.

• The population follows Binomial Distribution. (The data type is qualitative)

Its characteristics are exposed via such things like the sequence of 100 identical trials, each trial
has two outcomes (as mentioned above), and also the constant trail probability of success as well
as trials are independent.

• We have:

n1 = n2 = 50,

x1 24
p̂1 = n1 = 50 = 0.48,

x2 12
n
p̂ 2 = 2 = 50 = 0.24,

x1 + x 2 24 + 12
p̂ n + n2
= = 50 + 50 = 0.36,

q̂ = 1 - p̂ = 1 – 0.36 = 0.64

Therefore, n1 p̂1 = 24 > 5, n1 q̂1 = 26 > 5

n2 p̂ 2 = 12 > 5, n2 q̂ 2 = 38 > 5

Based on these conditions, we can use the z-test for comparing the proportions of two
populations.

4.2.2. The second objective

• There are two categorical outcomes:

The first one is success which symbolizes the proportion of FMT sophomores spending one
week or more preparing for an examination and the proportion of K2009 ED students who have
the same preference for the test preparation.
Inversely, the second outcome represents the proportion of FMT 2nd year students who allocate 3
days or fewer for the preparation of the test and the proportion of K2009 ED students who spend
less than or equal to 3 days preparing for the final exam.

• The population follows Binomial Distribution (The data type is qualitative)

Its characteristics are exposed via such things like sequence of 100 identical trials, each trial has
two outcomes (as mentioned above), and also the constant trail probability of success as well as
trials are independent.

• We have:

n1 = n2 = 50,

x1 30
p̂1 = n1 = 50 = 0.6,

x2 31
p̂ 2 = n 2 = 50 = 0.62,

x1 + x 2 30 + 31
p̂ n + n2
= = 50 + 50 = 0.61,

q̂ = 1 - p̂ = 1 – 0.61 = 0.39

Therefore, n1 p̂1 = 30 > 5, n1 q̂1 = 20 > 5

n2 p̂ 2 = 31 > 5, n2 q̂ 2 = 19 > 5

Based on these conditions, we can use the z-test for comparing the proportions of two
populations.
4.3. Hypothesis testing procedure

4.3.1. The first test

Step 1: The null and alternative hypotheses

Ho: (p1- p2) = 0

Ha: (p1- p2) > 0

Step 2: Test statistic

( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) − ( p1 − p 2 )
1 1 
pˆ qˆ  + 
z=  n1 n 2  is standard normally distributed

as n1 p̂1 > 5, n1 q̂1 > 5, n2 p̂ 2 > 5, and n 2 q̂ 2 > 5

Step 3: Significance level

α = 0.05

Step 4: Decision rule

Critical value z0.05 = 1.645. Reject Ho if z > 1.645

Step 5: Value of the test statistic

( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) − ( p1 − p 2 ) (0.48 − 0.24)
1 1   1 1 
pˆ qˆ  +  0.36 × 0.64 + 
z=  n1 n 2  =  50 50  = 2.5

Step 6: Conclusion

Since the value of the test statistic z = 2.5 > z0.05 = 1.645, we reject the null hypothesis in
favor of the alternative one.
There is enough statistical evidence at the level of significance α = 0.05 to conclude that the
proportion of all K2009 FMT students who review the lesson right after the lecture is greater
than the proportion of all K2009 ED students doing so.

4.3.2. The second test

Step 1: The null and alternative hypotheses

Ho: (p1- p2) = 0

Ha: (p1- p2) < 0

Step 2: Test statistic

( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) − ( p1 − p 2 )
1 1 
pˆ qˆ  + 
z=  n1 n 2  is standard normally distributed

as n1 p̂1 > 5, n1 q̂1 > 5, n2 p̂ 2 > 5, and n 2 q̂ 2 > 5

Step 3: Significance level

α = 0.05

Step 4: Decision rule

Critical value z0.05 = 1.645. Reject Ho if z < -1.645

Step 5: Value of the test statistic

( pˆ 1 − pˆ 2 ) − ( p1 − p 2 ) (0.6 − 0.62)
1 1   1 1 
pˆ qˆ  +  0.61 × 0.39 + 
z=  n1 n 2  =  50 50  = -0.21

Step 6: Conclusion
 Since the value of the test statistic z = -0.21 > -z0.05 = -1.64.5, we do not reject the null
hypothesis in favor of the alternative one.

There is not enough statistical evidence at the level of significance α = 0.05 to conclude that the
proportion of all K2009 ED students who spend at least one week preparing for an academic
examination is larger that the proportion of all K2009 FMT students preparing for the test in at
least one week.

4.4. Discussions of findings

In the early stage, we conducted two tests to figure out whether K2009 FMT students are more
diligent in reviewing the lesson than K2009 students of English Department and students from
which department are more intensive in learning for the exam. In the first test, based on the fact
that larger proportion of students questioned from FMT answered that they did review the lesson
right after the lecture (48% students from FMT compared to 24% from English Department), we
carried out the test to see if we can make the same conclusion for the whole population (whether
or not all students of FMT are proportionally more hard-working in revising their lessons than
students of English Department). With the value of the test statistic z = 2.5, exceeding z0.05 =
1.645, we have enough evidence to come to support the conclusion that the proportion of all
K2009 FMT students who review the lesson right after the lecture is greater than the proportion
of K2009 ED students doing so.
 Rejectio
n region

0 z
1.645 2.5

Figure 4. Sampling distribution for the first hypothesis test (α = 0.05)

In contrast, the number of students answered that they prepared for the final exam for at least one
week in English department are slightly higher than the number of students from FMT (31
compared to 30) .From this data of the sample, we then carried out the test to find out whether
there are more students from English Department who have a good studying strategy for the
exam (which includes those who learn frequently throughout the term and those who start
revising at least a week before the exam). Unfortunately, we do not have enough evidence to
reject the null hypothesis as the value of the test statistic z = -0.21 exceeding -z0.05 = -1.645.
Thus, we could not infer that K2009 students from English Department have a better studying
strategy to prepare for an academic exam than do students from FMT K2009.

From the results of these two tests, a conflict might arise that students of FMT K2009 are more
industrious during the whole learning process; however, they have to deal with the same
workload when preparing for the test. This might be explained by the different capacity of
curriculum between the two departments. Thus, to have a more accurate conclusion, the further
data collection and analysis should be carried out in the future in terms of the aspect in which
the students from English Department have the volume of work relatively similar to that of FMT
students.
5. Project evaluation

5.1. Limitations

Confusing and unnecessary questions are the problems in the questionnaire. The second question
identifies the respondent's academic year, which later turned out to be of no importance since we
had limited our populations to K2009 students only . On the other hand, some students found
question 3 confusing. It is designed to find out whether K2009 FMT and English students have
the habit of doing revision immediately after class. The definition of "immediately" however
seems to vary between students. It could be a couple of days, one week or even two. This could
have affected the precision of the results as the students might have provided inconsistent
responses due to the differences in their understanding.

5.2 Implications

This project aims at providing FMT and English Department sophomores with the insights into
their own study habit. It can be inferred from the project results that FMT second-year students
tend to work harder than those majoring in English. However, both of them share the same
preference for allocating one week and even less time to prepare for an academic examination.
These two groups of students therefore may consider the findings of this project to evaluate and
make any desired changes concerning their study habit.

In addtion, this project further suggests that there may be other factors that play a certain role in
creating such different study habits among the students. It might, in our opinion, the difference in
the curriculum that had formed distinct habit between the two groups of students. In such case,
this project's results would also benefit the managers and teachers of the two departments as they
may use these findings to further investigate the same subject as well as other topics related to
the study habit of the students.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

6.1 Summary of findings and interpretation.

Based on two hypotheses that more FMT students review the lesson right after the lecture and
are more intensive in learning for the exam than ED ones, we carried out the tests to identify
whether we can make the same conclusion for the whole population. With the significance level
of 5%, there is enough evidence to infer that the proportion of all K2009 FMT students who
review the lesson right after the lecture is greater than that of ED students, however, it is not
possible to conclude that the number of students from ED preparing for the final exam for at
least one week is higher than the number of students from FMT.

6.2 Recommendations

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of our project is to assist FMT and English Faculty students in
understanding more about the study habits of their own. Therefore, they can make suitable
adjustments to have better strategy of learning. While the students of FMT learn hard in the
process of studying lectures or tutorials, they seem to prefer revising the lessons from one to
three days before the final exams than their counterparts from K2009 ED. It is not an appreciated
habit because the students are not likely to remember all the knowledge that they have learned.
They should take more time for revision – at least one week before the final examination. As for
the ED students, they tend to ignore reviewing lesson right after the lecture. That is an ineffective
method of learning if they are to achieve higher marks for the exam, and more importantly, to get
sufficient knowledge for their future career. They can revise the lessons faster and more
efficiently when they understand and remember them after taking the lectures and tutorials
instead of cramming at the end of semester. Our project also gives detailed and reliable data for
FMT and ED teachers for being able to comprehend the learning habits of students to have more
effective methods of teaching to help students to get the best performance of learning.