Supporting Student Learning Strategies

Tomanek, D., & Montplaisir, L. (2004). Students’ studying and approaches to learning in introductory biology. Cell Biology Education, 3, 253-262. Large lecture environments are common for undergraduate introductory science courses, but they pose challenges to students transitioning from high school. Students must direct their own learning and learn material meaningfully, by building robust background knowledge and applying it to new situations. The authors interviewed students in an undergraduate introductory biology course (n=13) on (a) how they reasoned through pre-test and post-test questions about cell division and genetics, to evaluate reasoning accuracy, and (b) what strategies and resources they used when studying for a unit exam. Student responses were qualitatively coded for demonstrating three different learning approaches: “deep,” in which students seek to understand concepts and connect them with prior knowledge; “surface,” in which students memorize and exert minimal effort towards a task; and “strategic,” in which students plan and structure their tasks for high performance. Nearly all students studied right before the exam and sought to earn a high grade. They practiced answering old exams to become familiar with question formats and to check their understanding, and they reread their annotated in-class slides and textbook. Although all interviewed students earned high exam grades, they struggled to reason accurately on a novel question: whether a diagram of dividing cells represented mitosis or meiosis. These studying approaches represent a mix of surface and strategic approaches and could explain why students failed to reason meaningfully— they focused on achievement over strong conceptual understanding. Based on the results, instructors should note that students may study familiar problems because they believe it will earn them a high grade, and they may not use strategies that promote concept mastery and transfer to novel problems. However, instructors could encourage students’ use of deep approaches by creating opportunities to use knowledge in unfamiliar ways, such as in-class activities in which students solve novel problems.

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471-479. In this exploration of the strategies students use when studying for exams, the authors investigated whether students chose self-testing as a strategy and, if they did, why they used it. Undergraduate students who were participating in memory and learning experiments in psychology labs (n=177) reported what strategies they used while studying for exams and ranked how frequently they used each of their listed strategies. They also answered whether, given the choice, they would choose to restudy a reading passage or quiz themselves over the information in the passage. As expected, students frequently reread their textbook or notes when studying for exams but infrequently engaged in self-testing (i.e., practice recalling material). The few students who did use self-testing as a strategy reported its benefit in providing feedback on how successfully they had learned concepts, but not that it improved their retention. The authors argue that repeatedly reviewing materials may result in illusions of competence because students simply become more familiar with the material right in front of them, and they are less able to successfully recall information when the information is not present during testing. Based on the results, instructors should note that students are likely to reread course materials as they study and do not necessarily know that self-testing is superior in promoting long-term retention of information. Students can, however, recognize the benefit of self-testing in revealing knowledge gaps.

Lopez, E. J., Nandagopal, K., Shavelson, R. J., Szu, E., & Penn, J. (2013). Self-regulated learning study strategies and academic performance in undergraduate organic chemistry: An investigation examining ethnically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 660-676. Students entering college differ in their knowledge of effective learning strategies, which may result in varying levels of academic achievement. This difference could partly contribute to a loss of students from the STEM talent pool, particularly students from minoritized groups. To evaluate this possibility, the authors examined whether students of different ethnic backgrounds differed in their use of learning strategies, and whether any differences corresponded to differences in course performance. Undergraduate students (n=89) from an ethnically diverse state university taking an organic chemistry course completed diaries in which they documented the strategies they used while studying. Among all ethnic groups, students reported organizing and transforming information, reviewing previous problems (e.g., homework and quizzes), reviewing notes, and reviewing the textbook most frequently; reviewing the textbook was the most used out of all strategies. The only detectable difference related to ethnicity was that Latino/a students reported using these popular strategies relatively more frequently than did White students. The least-used strategies included seeking social assistance (e.g., from peers, the instructor, or the teaching assistant) and metacognitive strategies (e.g., checking one’s understanding and setting goals/planning). Whether grouped together or separated by ethnicity, no strategies were significantly related to course grades, and only a couple strategies were moderately correlated with performance on formative assessments (concept maps and problem sets). Based on the results, instructors should note that students frequently review course materials, which may not impart any benefit to learning, and they may not often use metacognitive strategies or seek social assistance. Moreover, students may need coaching on using more effective strategies, such as self-evaluation, goal-setting and planning, and seeking assistance from expert sources.

Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & DeLozier, S. (2016). Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory, 24, 257-271. Students do not always choose effective strategies. However, little is known on whether instructors know effective strategies and encourage students to use them. The authors compared undergraduate students’ reported strategy use with instructors’ beliefs on beneficial learning strategies. Students (n=300) from introductory psychology courses reported which strategies they used while studying for exams and whether their instructors influenced their approaches. Instructors (n=146) across the university reported whether they discussed strategies with their students, what strategies they recommended, and their beliefs about students’ study habits. Then, students and instructors rated the value of using an effective versus ineffective strategy in a given learning scenario (e.g., is interleaving versus blocking more effective?). Most students remarked that their instructors did not influence their strategy choices, yet most instructors reported discussing strategies with their students, often before a major assessment. Students reported using both effective and ineffective strategies most frequently (testing, rereading, using flashcards), and roughly half spaced their studying. In comparison, instructors often considered testing and spacing effective, but they also advocated for strategies with mixed effectiveness, such as rereading and studying with peers. Both students and instructors viewed testing largely as a monitoring tool (i.e., how well material was learned), rather than an approach to foster retention. A majority of students reported choosing to study whatever was due soonest, even though they believed planning was superior. Despite largely similar strategy endorsements, instructors were slightly more likely than students to endorse testing and generating one’s own study materials. Based on these results, instructors should note that (1) students may need support in planning their studying, (2) both students and instructors have mixed beliefs about effective strategies, and (3) some students do heed studying advice from their instructors. Instructors should know which strategies are effective so they can encourage their students to use them.

Sebesta, A. J., & Bray Speth, E. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16, ar30. To support students in using effective study strategies, it is necessary to first uncover what strategies they are already using. The authors of this study asked undergraduate students (n=414) in an introductory biology course for majors to report (a) how frequently they used 15 different strategies when they studied for each of the first two course exams and (b) their proposed strategy plan for future exams. For both exams, the most popular strategies used while studying included seeking information to answer assignment questions, structuring one’s study environment, reviewing the textbook and screencasts (i.e., recorded mini lectures), and keeping records and monitoring (i.e., taking notes and marking what one does not understand). Students’ reported use of answering previous years’ exams was only mildly popular for the first exam but became the third most-used strategy for the second exam. In contrast, the least-used strategies included seeking assistance from the instructor and seeking assistance from teaching assistants, tutors, and other knowledgeable sources. In the plans proposed after reflecting on their strategy use and exam performance, students often remarked the need to avoid procrastinating and the desire to use course materials, such as reviewing their notes or screencasts. Essentially, students frequently used and reviewed course-based materials, recognized value in practice testing in supporting their performance after their first exam, and sought assistance from classmates or peers but not often from experts (instructors or teaching assistants). Based on these results, instructors should note that students may need to be encouraged to (1) use practice exams early on to promote retention and monitoring of knowledge gaps, (2) seek help from expert sources, in addition to peers, and (3) plan and manage their study time more effectively.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58. Out of the many ways educators can support student achievement, one readily available approach is encouraging students to use effective learning strategies and techniques. However, it may be difficult to identify which strategies to suggest, out of the many available, to improve achievement. In this monograph, the authors assessed 10 different learning strategies that could improve achievement. They compiled and reviewed literature on these strategies and evaluated their potential for supporting learning based on their generalizability: the content/disciplines in which the strategies were investigated, the context in which the learning occurred (e.g., individual versus group learning), student characteristics (e.g., age and prior knowledge), and the specific types of tasks to which the strategies were applied (e.g., problem solving versus recall). Based on the degree of generalizability and evidence for improving learning, each strategy was rated for its utility. Spacing and self-testing were rated at high utility because they can be easily implemented, can be used in many different learning contexts and disciplines, and robustly support student performance. Interleaving was rated at medium utility because early evidence suggested it benefits learning, but little evidence was available at the time that demonstrated its efficacy in classroom settings. Finally, strategies such as highlighting materials and rereading were rated at low utility. Although easily and commonly used in a variety of tasks and subjects, these strategies inconsistently support performance because they are cognitively passive and inefficient. This review distills the vast literature on learning strategies so instructors can focus their efforts on promoting the most effective learning techniques. Based on this paper, instructors should note that (1) spacing and self-testing are the two most valuable strategies for improving student achievement, and (2) spacing and self-testing can readily be incorporated into instruction on how to learn in order to encourage students to use them.

 

 Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). What works, what doesn’t. Scientific American Mind, 24(4), 46-53. This resource is a summary of the Dunlosky et al. 2013 review. We recommend this short article for readers who are interested in the top recommendations from the comprehensive review.

Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. (2017). Interleaved presentation benefits science category learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 475-485. Interleaving examples from different categories during study, rather than blocking similar examples together, enables learners to identify distinguishing features of those categories and promotes superior learning. In many science courses, students are asked to distinguish between well-defined categories (e.g., identifying polar vs. nonpolar amino acids), and instructors may deliberately point out key features of these categories during instruction. Little is known as to whether highlighting key features during instruction either supports the interleaving effect by enhancing attention to distinguishing features, or hinders the effect because it could prevent learners from actively searching for key features. In a series of four experiments, the authors presented undergraduates (n=60) with examples of various chemical compound categories—half the students learning by blocking examples from each category, and half learning by interleaving examples from different categories. The authors also tested whether explicitly highlighting diagnostic features for each category and example during study affected the efficacy of blocking versus interleaving. Participants made judgments of confidence in correctly identifying chemical groups and were tested two days after studying. Participants with interleaved studying consistently outperformed those with blocked studying in correctly identifying simple and complex organic compounds (controlling for previous chemistry knowledge). They generally made more accurate confidence judgments in correctly identifying test items and reported higher confidence compared to the blocked group. Visually cueing diagnostic features during study did not decrease the efficacy of interleaving over blocking, as interleaved studying still produced higher performance. Based on the results, instructors should note that discussing and highlighting relevant features during learning of the categories (1) does not detract from the benefits of interleaving examples during study and (2) can be applied successfully to science material with clearly defined features across categories.

Rodriguez, F., Rivas, M. J., Matsumura, L. H., Warschauer, M., & Sato, B. K. (2018). How do students study in STEM courses? Findings from a light-touch intervention and its relevance for underrepresented students. PLoS One, 13. Spacing and self-testing result in higher achievement, and training for using these strategies could improve performance for students from minoritized groups who are underrepresented in science. The authors assessed the degree to which students in a large-enrollment molecular biology course (Year 1 n=544; Year 2 n=782) used spacing and self-testing while studying for exams, whether use of spacing and self-testing varied by minority status, and whether an intervention to encourage use of spacing and self-testing could increase their use. Students in the control groups (multiple course sections) and the intervention group (one section) reported how they studied at the beginning and end of the course. The intervention group received a 10-minute lecture during the second week on the benefits of spacing and self-testing (i.e., answering practice questions/problems) and was reminded weekly to use them. While a majority of all students (regardless of group) reported spacing, self-testing, and rereading the textbook early on, minoritized students reported using self-testing less frequently than non-minoritized students. Students in all groups reported similar levels of spacing and self-testing initially, but the intervention group often maintained their use of both strategies while the control groups stopped using both strategies over time. Minoritized students in the intervention group increased or maintained their use of self-testing specifically whereas minoritized students in the control groups decreased their use. Students who used spacing and self-testing throughout the course earned higher course grades, compared to those who never used or adopted them later. Although they generally earned lower grades compared to non-minoritized students, minoritized students who reported self-testing earned similar grades to non-minoritized students who reported self-testing. The authors note that the intervention group had more frequent exams than the control groups, but it indicates that course format might influence the use of spacing and self-testing. Based on the results, instructors should note that (1) they can encourage students to use spacing and self-testing by discussing their benefits in class, (2) spacing and self-testing best support performance when they are adopted early, and (3) spacing and self-testing can improve achievement for minoritized students.

Walck-Shannon, E. M., Cahill, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Frey, R. F. (2019). Participation in voluntary re-quizzing is predictive of increased performance on cumulative assessments in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18, ar15. Self-testing not only supports monitoring of understanding, but also enables stronger learning of material. However, does retaking old quizzes for no additional credit, after a delay from initial learning and quizzing over the material, confer the same benefit? Additionally, does self-testing (in the form of delayed re-quizzing) differentially impact performance of students with different levels of preparedness? In a large-enrollment biology course for majors (n=310), instructors re-opened quizzes before an exam for use as a study tool. Quiz questions were drawn from a pool, so students could take multiple versions of the quizzes, and questions differed from those used in the outcome assessments. The authors examined whether engaging in more frequent delayed re-quizzing explained higher performance on a course post-test and cumulative final exam, while controlling for incoming knowledge (pre-test performance) and prior STEM achievement (final exam performance for students’ previous college chemistry course). Delayed re-quizzing explained a small but significant portion of performance on both the post-test and cumulative final exam, beyond prior STEM achievement and incoming knowledge. Moreover, delayed re-quizzing boosted performance on the final exam (for all question types, and for free-response questions specifically) for students who had lower prior STEM achievement. Nevertheless, students with lower prior STEM performance did not often engage in delayed re-quizzing, compared to their higher-achieving counterparts. Based on the results, instructors should note that (1) re-opening quizzes before an exam is an easy way to encourage students to self-test, (2) delayed re-quizzing can boost performance beyond prior STEM achievement, and (3) students with lower prior STEM achievement especially benefit from delayed re-quizzing, even though they may not be as likely to engage in re-quizzing. Thus, instructors can coach students to self-test in order to support those with lower prior achievement.

Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453-472. Prior work has revealed that students often adopt a particular approach to their learning. In a deep approach, learners tend to seek robust understanding, connect ideas, and enjoy immersing in the task, whereas a surface approach entails minimal task engagement and reproducing information with little understanding. Students may select approaches based on their perceptions of assessment demands, such as format (multiple-choice exam versus essay assignment) and the expected level of cognitive processing. These different approaches could result in different levels of achievement on those tasks. To evaluate such possibilities, the author asked undergraduate students taking a second-year education course (n=164) to report their learning approaches (surface versus deep) towards both a multiple-choice exam and an essay assignment, their perceptions of the cognitive-processing level targeted for each assessment, and their preferred assessment format. Students perceived the multiple-choice exam to assess lower-level cognitive skills and often employed surface approaches. Contrarily, students perceived the essay assignment to assess higher-level cognitive skills and tended to employ deep approaches. Students who employed surface approaches to the multiple-choice exam earned higher scores compared to students employing a deep approach; the opposite was true for the essay (deep approach, higher scores; surface approach, lower scores). Lastly, students who preferred essay assignments were more likely to adopt deep approaches, and those preferring multiple-choice exams tended to adopt surface approaches. Based on the results, instructors should note that (1) the nature of an assessment, such as format and perceived level of cognitive skills tested, can influence students’ choices of strategies for completing the task, (2) students who use strategies aligned with assessment demands tend to perform more strongly than students using misaligned strategies, and (3) instructors can be intentional in how they design their assessments, depending on course learning goals, to encourage students’ use of effective strategies.

Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126-134. While previous research has investigated patterns of strategy use among undergraduates and their reasons for selecting strategies, it has not always made a more direct connection between strategy use and achievement. This study explores the strategy use profiles of higher- versus lower-achieving students, particularly assessing whether self-testing and spacing are related to higher achievement. The authors asked undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology courses (n=324) to report how they scheduled their studying, reasons for engaging in self-testing, and the specific strategies they frequently used when studying. A majority of students used self-testing to monitor how well they had learned material, and as expected, those who used self-testing tended to have higher GPAs. Students often prioritized studying based on what was due soonest, especially lower-achieving students, although higher-achieving students were more likely to plan their studying. Surprisingly, rereading the textbook or notes positively predicted GPA, yet spacing did not, despite its reported benefits for retention. Nevertheless, students who spaced their study also tended to report self-testing and rereading the textbook or notes and used more strategies overall. That some strategies corresponded to higher achievement, whereas others did not, can speak to the importance of understanding the context in which students are using these strategies, as well as the nuances in how strategies are used. Based on the results, instructors should note that the context in which strategies are used—subject domain, course learning goals and assessment demands, and the specifics of how and why students use strategies—could help to explain their contribution (or lack thereof) to academic performance.

Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. Nature Partner Journal Science of Learning, 1, 1-13. If students are to be successful, lifelong learners, then they must effectively learn how to learn—that is, learn how, when, and why to use particular learning strategies. The authors of this synthesis propose several concepts in a model of the learning process. First, the strategies that best support achievement align to the demands of the learning task. Thus, it is crucial that students and instructors have a clear, shared understanding of expectations for success, so students can more intentionally direct their efforts and select appropriate strategies. Second, learning happens on a continuum, from surface processing (building knowledge), to deep processing (connecting knowledge), to transfer (applying knowledge). Each phase is characterized by strategies that maximize that type of learning. Rather than prizing deep processing and transfer over surface processing, instructors and students should recognize that all types of processing are necessary at particular times and in particular circumstances. Surface processing is critical for establishing background knowledge that can then be elaborated upon and synthesized during deep processing, and eventually made robust to be transferred to novel situations. Accordingly, learning how to use strategies effectively should be situated in the context of specific content so students can learn how and why certain strategies are appropriate for certain tasks and domains. Based on this article, instructors should note that (1) students need explicit instruction and feedback on what constitutes success for a task, (2) students’ level of background knowledge can influence which learning strategies they select, (3) surface, deep, and transfer-related learning can be useful depending on the learning context, and (4) teaching of strategies should account for students’ background knowledge and be embedded in specific content, so students can more readily build procedural and conditional knowledge of learning strategies.

Steiner, H. H. (2016). The Strategy Project: Promoting Self-Regulated Learning through an Authentic Assignment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28, 271-282. Self-regulated learners set goals and plan, select appropriate strategies, monitor and evaluate their approaches to reach their goals, and have higher academic performance. Although instructors expect their students to be effective self-regulated learners, many students transitioning from high school need support in meeting these expectations by practicing self-regulated learning in an authentic context. That is, they must practice how to plan, choose strategies, monitor progress, and evaluate approaches based on outcomes from a tangible academic task, such as a course exam. The author employed the “Strategy Project” in which undergraduate students in a first-year seminar (n=79) did the following: learn about effective strategies from in-class instruction, choose a specific course exam to apply the strategy project, meet with the specific course instructor to discuss effective strategies, set a timeline for studying and select strategies, and evaluate their strategy plan through an essay with metacognitive prompts (e.g., what strategies helped). The author openly coded essays for emergent themes. Students found the project helpful and felt it enabled them to more easily meet expectations for college learning, such as trying new, more effective strategies and planning their study. They also identified why certain strategies were or were not helpful while studying for their first exam, proposed specific strategies to address shortcomings, and valued self-quizzing and seeking help from their instructors as useful techniques. Most importantly, approximately 70% of students reported at least a small increase in their exam grade, and those whose grade decreased took responsibility for their lack of studying effort. Based on the results, instructors should note that (1) adopting effective strategies should be situated to a specific task and context, (2) guided planning, monitoring, and evaluating can help students to recognize the value in controlling their learning, and (3) metacognitive engagement can improve performance.

Chen, P., Chavez, O., Ong, D. C., & Gunderson, B. (2017). Strategic resource use for learning: A self-administered intervention that guides self-reflection on effective resource use enhances academic performance. Psychological Science, 28, 774-785. Students with greater knowledge and control over how they learn can use course resources more strategically, and they experience higher academic performance. Can an intervention aimed at supporting students in explicitly planning how and why to use particular resources while studying increase performance? In two field experiments, undergraduates in an introductory statistics course (Study 1, n=171; Study 2, n=190) were randomly assigned either to the control or intervention conditions. Both groups received a reminder of the upcoming exam one week prior, but the intervention group received a series of prompts regarding strategic resource use. These latter students reflected on expectations for the upcoming exam, selected course resources from a checklist, explained why their selected resources would maximize their learning, and proposed a plan for how, when, and where they would use them in their studying. Finally, students in both conditions reported which resources they actually used and their usefulness in a post-exam survey. In both studies, students receiving the treatment outperformed students in the control group in overall course performance by 3-4 percentage points. Students in the treatment group also chose fewer resources, indicating they were more efficient and intentional in resource use. A causal model shows students in the intervention becoming more reflective in how they learn overall, which influenced how useful they thought their selected resources were and consequently improved their performance. Based on the results, instructors should note that prompting students to intentionally select resources for learning, and articulating why and how they would use them, builds procedural and conditional knowledge and increases performance. Such an intervention is a minimal-effort approach to foster metacognitive regulation because students are explicitly setting goals and planning, monitoring, and evaluating their resource choices and effectiveness.

Sebesta, A. J., & Bray Speth, E. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16, ar30. Students who use self-regulated learning strategies more frequently also have higher academic achievement. However, this issue has not been frequently explored in the context of undergraduate biology—what strategies impart greater success in a learner-centered, introductory biology course for majors? The authors analyzed whether more frequent use of 15 different learning strategies was related to higher exam grades, as well as improvement in grades between the first two course exams. Of 15 strategies, only six were associated with grades for both exams (students reporting higher use of these strategies earned higher grades): self-evaluation, seeking information, keeping records (taking notes) and monitoring understanding, seeking instructor assistance, reviewing exams, and reviewing graded work. Those who improved their grade from the first to second exam, compared to their peers who maintained or decreased their grade, reported higher use of self-evaluation, goal-setting and planning, seeking information, reviewing notes, and reviewing exams. The strategies associated with higher or improved exam achievement were aligned to the course context and expectations for learning. This particular course adopted rubrics for evaluating one’s own work, both before and after grading, and emphasized the value of reviewing graded work to understand correct answers. The instructor also provided various course resources to support students’ studying, including the textbook, class slides, and exams from previous years. Strategies such as self-evaluating, keeping records and monitoring, and reviewing graded work involved metacognitive monitoring for how well students had acquired knowledge or met expectations for various tasks. Based on this study, instructors should note that students who apply strategies matching course expectations for learning have higher academic achievement. Some of these strategies, such as self-evaluation, goal-setting, planning, and reviewing graded work, entail metacognition, which speaks to the importance of monitoring and controlling one’s learning for academic success in a college setting.

Kuhbandner, C., & Emmerdinger, K. J. (2019). Do students really prefer repeated rereading over testing when studying textbooks? A reexamination. Memory, 27, 952-961. What do students mean when they report that they reread as a study strategy? Students could mean repeated rereading of an entire text chapter or notes. By contrast, students could reread more selectively—when studying, they may only reread content they do not understand. Furthermore, depending on how students approach rereading, they may apply other strategies to support their learning, such as self-testing. The authors evaluated these possibilities in two investigations. For the first investigation, they administered a survey that explicitly distinguished between restudying versus rereading (and included other strategies, such as testing) and asked students how they would use the strategies at different stages of learning. Undergraduate psychology students reported relying on restudying and rereading the most when beginning to study, but as studying progressed to later stages, they reported relying heavily on testing and review. For the second investigation, psychology students first read a text on viruses, and then they were given 13 minutes to restudy the text. Students then provided an open-ended report of how they restudied the text and also filled out a forced-report questionnaire. As with prior surveys, fewer than 20% of students reported using testing in the open report, but nearly 75% indicated they tested themselves when filling out the forced-report questionnaire. One possibility for this apparent discrepancy is that students do not perceive testing as a “study tool” but instead perceive it as a monitoring tool, and hence do not freely report using it when queried about their study strategies. Based on the results, instructors should know that many students do use testing as they prepare for exams, and they apparently rely on testing to guide what they choose to reread. Thus, providing students with practice tests may be fruitful because most students will take advantage of them to monitor how well they understand (or have retained) course content.

McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462-476. Students must be able to identify empirically-supported learning strategies in order to use learning strategies on the basis of their empirical support. This study examined whether college students could select the empirically-supported learning strategy from a pair of learning strategies, and whether training students about empirically-supported learning strategies affected students’ ability to select those strategies. Using data from surveys of 255 undergraduate students from across the U.S., the author found that participants only endorsed one of six empirically-supported learning strategies when presented in a pair with a less effective learning strategy. Participants recognized the value of generation; when a learner creates their own materials, they will remember better than when an instructor creates materials for them. Yet participants did not select five other empirically-supported learning strategies. For example, participants incorrectly predicted that restudying material would be better for remembering material than being tested on the material. Using data from surveys of 128 undergraduate and graduate students, the author also found that students who receive targeted instruction on learning strategies better recognized effective strategies than students who did not receive any instruction. Based on the results, instructors should note that: (1) students are not likely to identify empirically-supported learning strategies on their own, but (2) providing students with targeted instruction can help them identify empirically-supported learning strategies.

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585-592. One way to learn a new concept or category is by studying examples. When learners consider several examples of a new concept or category, they can gain an understanding of its general features from the examples. In this cognitive science study, the authors compared the effect of massing and spacing when undergraduates learned new artists by viewing several examples of their paintings. In some cases, students viewed six consecutive paintings from one artist (massing), and in other cases students viewed six paintings from an artist interleaved with paintings from other artists (spacing). Testing involved showing the students paintings they had not seen before and asking them which artist the painting belonged to. Most students performed better when tested on artists they learned by spacing rather than massing. Yet when asked which method was more effective for their learning, most students reported that massing was more effective, even though their own data did not support this. The authors suggest that massing study produces a feeling of fluency or ease of learning, which can mislead a learner about the degree to which they have successfully retained material. Based on the results, instructors should note that: (1) spacing or interleaving concepts may help students learn concepts better, and (2) students may believe that one strategy is more effective than another, even when the opposite is true for them.

Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255. Does being tested on material help learners remember because testing simply allows them to restudy the information they can recall? This study addressed this question to evaluate whether the positive effect of testing on memory is primarily due to additional exposure to the material. Students read a passage of text and then either restudied the passage (S/studying) or wrote everything they could remember from the passage from memory (T/testing). In the first experiment, students who experienced two rounds of restudying (SS) remembered more after 5 minutes than students who restudied once before being tested (ST). When students were assessed either 2 days or 1 week later, however, those in the ST condition remembered more than those in the SS condition. In a second experiment, the authors assessed the effects of repeated testing or studying with SSSS, SSST, or STTT conditions. When assessed a week later, students remembered more in the STTT condition than the SSSS condition, yet students predicted they would remember best from the SSSS condition. Based on the results, instructors should note that: (1) testing is more effective for long-term retention whereas restudying is effective for short-term retention, (2) the effect of testing on memory is not just a matter of re-exposure to the material, and (3) students believe that restudying will help them remember better than testing, even when this is not the case.

Stanton, J.D., Neider, X.N., Gallegos, I.J., Clark, N.C. (2015) Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough”. CBE-Life Sciences Education 14(2), 1-12. In this paper, the authors examined introductory biology students’ use of metacognitive skills in the context of exam preparation (n=245). They used two open-ended exam self-evaluation assignments to collect data. Through content analysis, they coded the assignments for evidence of students’ use of three key metacognitive regulation skills: monitoring, evaluating, and planning. They found that nearly all of the students were willing to select new learning strategies while making a study plan, but only half of the students could evaluate the effectiveness of strategies they used, and less than half planned their studying for the next exam based on their evaluations (see After Taking an Exam (Evaluating) node). Because effective metacognition involves taking action to learn, they also explored whether students who could successfully evaluate actually carried out their new plans, finding that half failed to follow their plans. Students indicated that their lack of follow-through was because they believed they did not need to change (because they thought they knew the material) or they did not know how to carry out their plans. Based on the results, instructors should note that: (1) prompting students to use metacognition is enough for some introductory students to take action, but most students need additional help to respond metacognitively to prompts, and (2) most students recognize a need to change how they learn, but they may need help understanding what learning strategies exist and when and why to use those strategies appropriately.

Dye, K. M., & Stanton, J. D. (2017). Metacognition in upper-division biology students: Awareness does not always lead to control. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16, ar31. In this paper, the authors investigated metacognition in upper-division biology students to understand when, why, and how undergraduate students use evaluation skills. Evaluation includes the ability to determine the effectiveness of individual learning strategies and the ability to appraise and adjust overall study plans. The authors analyzed data from two post-exam self-evaluation assignments (n=126) to identify upper-division biology students with high metacognitive regulation skills. They collected data from those students using semi-structured interviews and analyzed the data using content and thematic analysis (n=25). The authors found that students did not evaluate in high school because they performed well in their science classes without studying. Students began to evaluate their approaches to learning when their undergraduate science courses presented novel challenges. For example, in organic chemistry, students had to learn through non-math-based problem solving for the first time. Most students evaluated in response to an unsatisfactory grade, but some evaluated when they monitored their understanding using study tools such as practice exams. The authors gained insights on the barriers students face when they try to change their approaches to learning based on their evaluations. Some students continued to use ineffective learning strategies even though they were aware of the ineffectiveness of those strategies. A desire to avoid feeling uncomfortable was the primary reason they did not use strategies that they knew were effective for learning. Based on the results, instructors should note that: (1) many life science students come to college with little experience in evaluating their study approaches, (2) students may benefit from a mini-exam early in a course to encourage them to evaluate their approaches to learning, and (3) students may benefit from explicit discussion of the value of discomfort (e.g., increased cognitive effort of active strategies and stress of realizing their own knowledge gaps) while learning.