We examined self-directed studying of students in an introductory (Study 1) and upper-level (Study 2) psychology course. Students reported their study behaviors for Exam 1 and 2, and wrote Exam 2 study plans. In both studies, students planned to and ultimately did use more active strategies for Exam 2 than Exam 1. However, they struggled to follow through on plans to space studying over time. In Study 1, we also found that greater use of active strategies (e.g., retrieval practice) was associated with higher exam scores when controlling for factors such as study time. Our findings highlight that students across course levels are interested in changing their study behaviors and we note implications for instructors.
BartoszewskiB. L.GurungR. A. R. (2015). Comparing the relationship of learning techniques and exam score. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000036
2.
BjorkR. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In MetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. P. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.
3.
BlasimanR. N.DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974
4.
BudéL.ImbosT.van de WielM. W.BergerM. P. (2011). The effect of distributed practice on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics. Higher Education, 62(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9366-y
5.
BuggJ. M.DeLoshE. L.McDanielM. A. (2008). Improving students’ study habits by demonstrating the mnemonic benefits of semantic processing. Teaching of Psychology, .35(2), 96–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280801977519
6.
CallenderA. A.McDanielM. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001
7.
CookE.KennedyE.McGuireS. Y. (2013). Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(8), 961–967. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h
8.
CredéM.KuncelN. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x
9.
CredéM.PhillipsL. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002
10.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A.MarshE. J.NathanM. J.WillinghamD. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), .4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
11.
DyeK. M.StantonJ. D. (2017). Metacognition in upper-division biology students: Awareness does not always lead to control. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0286
12.
Gezer-TempletonP. G.MayhewE. J.KorteD. S.SchmidtS. J. (2017). Use of exam wrappers to enhance students’ metacognitive skills in a large introductory food science and human nutrition course. Journal of Food Science Education, 16(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12103
13.
GurungR. A.WeidertJ.JeskeA. (2012). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 28–35.
14.
HartwigM. K.DunloskyJ. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0181-y
15.
JaniszewskiC.NoelH.SawyerA. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. .Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1086/374692
16.
JuncoR.CottenS. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
17.
KuhbandnerC.EmmerdingerK. J. (2019). Do students really prefer repeated rereading over testing when studying textbooks? A reexamination. Memory, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1610177
18.
LovettM. C. (2013). Make exams worth more than the grade: Using exam wrappers to promote metacognition. In KaplanM.SilverN.LaVaque-MantyD.MeizlishD. (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 21–43). Stylus Publishing.
19.
MayK. E.ElderA. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z
20.
McDanielM. A.BuggJ. M.LiuY.BrickJ. (2015). When does the test-study-test sequence optimize learning and retention?Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 21(4), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000063
21.
McDanielM. A.RoedigerH. L.McdermottK. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194052
22.
MiyatsuT.NguyenK.McDanielM. A. (2018). Five popular study strategies: Their pitfalls and optimal implementations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617710510
PressleyM.McDanielM. A.TurnureJ. E.WoodE.AhmadM. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291
25.
RawsonK. A.KintschW. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 70–80.
26.
RoedigerH. L.ButlerA. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
SebestaA. J.SpethE. B. (2017). How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0269
29.
SmithB. L.HollidayW. G.AustinH. W. (2010). Students’ comprehension of science textbooks using a question-based reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20378
30.
StantonJ. D.DyeK. M.JohnsonM. (2019). Knowledge of learning makes a difference: A comparison of metacognition in introductory and senior-level biology students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar24. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0239
31.
StantonJ. D.NeiderX. N.GallegosI. J.ClarkN. C. (2015). Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: When prompts are not enough. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135
32.
SusserJ. A.McCabeJ. (2013). From the lab to the dorm room: Metacognitive awareness and use of spaced study. Instructional Science, 41(2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9231-8
33.
TrumboM. C.LeitingK. A.McDanielM. A.HodgeG. K. (2016). Effects of reinforcement on test-enhanced learning in a large, diverse introductory college psychology course. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000082
34.
WeinsteinY.SmithM.CaviglioliO. (n.d.). Six strategies for effective learning. The Learning Scientists. Retrieved October 20, 2019, fromhttps://www.learningscientists.org
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
