Discussion — Studying in a group versus studying alone

Students tend to divide into two camps when it comes to revision: those who gather around a shared table and those who shut the door. In my view, both methods work, but at different stages, and solitary study has to come first.

Supporters of group study argue that explaining an idea aloud is the surest test of whether one has understood it. When students have to teach a chapter to classmates, gaps in their knowledge are exposed immediately, because a peer will ask the question the textbook never raised. Groups also hold each other accountable: it is far harder to skip a session that three friends are expecting than one planned alone. Medical students, for instance, routinely quiz one another on cases, since recalling an answer under questioning fixes it in memory more firmly than rereading notes. The weakness is that a group moves at the pace of its conversation, which easily drifts away from the syllabus.

Those who prefer to work alone point out that difficult material demands sustained concentration, which company interrupts. Working through a proof, drafting an essay or memorising vocabulary are all tasks in which each learner has a different sticking point, so studying at one's own pace is more efficient. A solitary student can spend forty minutes on the one concept that confuses them, rather than sitting through explanations of what they already know. More importantly, group discussion is only productive if members arrive having done this groundwork; otherwise the session becomes a case of the best-prepared person doing the thinking for everyone else. For this reason, I regard individual study as the foundation and group work as the check on it.

Neither approach, therefore, is more effective in every circumstance. Students learn most when they first grapple with the material alone and then use a group to test, correct and deepen what they have learnt.