Researchers’ and educators’ enthusiasm in applying cognitive principles to enhance educational practices has become more evident. Several published reviews have suggested that some potent strategies can help students learn more efficaciously. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, students do not report frequent reliance on these empirically supported techniques. In the present review, we take a novel approach, identifying study strategies for which students have strong preferences and assessing whether these preferred strategies have any merit given existing empirical evidence from the cognitive and educational literatures. Furthermore, we provide concrete recommendations for students, instructors, and psychologists. For students, we identify common pitfalls and tips for optimal implementation for each study strategy. For instructors, we provide recommendations for how they can assist students to more optimally implement these study strategies. For psychologists, we highlight promising avenues of research to help augment these study strategies.
AmerA. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underling training on the reading comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 35–45.
2.
AmlundJ. T.KardashC. A. M.KulhavyR. W. (1986). Repetitive reading and recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 49-58.
3.
AnnisL.DavisJ. K. (1978). Study techniques and cognitive style: Their effect on recall and recognition. The Journal of Educational Research, 71, 175–178.
4.
AustinJ. L.LeeM. G.ThibeaultM. D.CarrJ. E.BaileyJ. S. (2002). Effects of guided notes on university students’ responding and recall of information. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 243–254.
5.
AusubelD. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.
6.
AusubelD. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
7.
BarbettaP. M.SkaruppaC. L. (1995). Looking for a way to improve your behavior analysis lectures? Try guided notes. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 155–160.
8.
BarnettJ. E.SeefeldtR. W. (1989). Read something once, why read it again? Repetitive reading and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 351-360.
9.
BartlettB. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organizational strategy for recall of classroom text (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
10.
BartonW.Jr. (1930). Outlining as a study procedure. The Teachers College Record, 32, 473–474.
11.
BellK. E.LimberJ. E. (1938). Reading skill, textbook marking, and course performance. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 56–67.
12.
BerkowitzS. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161–178.
13.
BjorkR. A.DunloskyJ.KornellN. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
14.
BlalickS. M.BlalickD. H.WarkD. M. (1977). The effects of experimenter-underlining and expertise on the retention of text material. In PearsonP. D.HansenJ. (Eds.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice. Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 26–31). Clemson, SC: The National Reading Conference, Inc.
15.
BlanchardJ.MikkelsonV. (1987). Underlining performance outcomes in expository text. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 197–201.
16.
BosL. T.De KoningB. B.WassenburgS. I.van der SchootM. (2016). Training inference making skills using a situation model approach improves reading comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 116. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00116
17.
BretzingB. H.KulhavyR. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145–153.
18.
BrownA. L.SmileyS. S. (1978). The development of strategies for studying texts. Child Development, 49, 1076–1088.
19.
BuiD. C.McDanielM. A. (2015). Enhancing learning during note-taking using outlines and illustrative diagrams. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 129–135.
20.
BuiD. C.MyersonJ. (2014). The role of working memory abilities in lecture note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12–22.
21.
BuiD. C.MyersonJ.HaleS. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309.
22.
CallenderA. A.McDanielM. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 30–41.
23.
CarrierM. (2003). College students’ choice of study strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 54–56.
24.
CarrierM.PashlerH. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642.
25.
CashenV. M.LeichtK. L. (1970). Role of the isolation effect in a formal educational setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 484–486.
26.
CepedaN. J.PashlerH.VulE.WixtedJ. T.RohrerD. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.
27.
ChristensenC. M.StordahlK. E. (1955). The effect of organizational aids on comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 65–74.
28.
CioffiG. (1986). Relationships among comprehension strategies reported by college students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 25, 220–232.
29.
CollingwoodV.HughesD. C. (1978). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 175–179.
30.
CorkillA. J. (1992). Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 33–67.
31.
CorneliusT. L.Owen-DeSchryverJ. (2008). Differential effects of full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 6–12.
32.
CrouseJ. H.IdsteinP. (1972). Effects of encoding cues on prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 309–313.
33.
DavisJ. K.AnnisL. (1978). The effect of study techniques, study preferences, and familiarity on later recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 47, 92–96.
34.
De SmetM. J. R.Brand-GruwelS.BroekkampH.KirschnerP. A. (2012). Write between the lines: Electronic outlining and the organization of text ideas. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2107–2116.
35.
De SmetM. J. R.Brand-GruwelS.LeijtenM.KirschnerP. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students’ writing products mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352–366.
36.
De SmetM. J. R.BroekkampH.Brand-GruwelS.KirschnerP. A. (2011). Effects of electronic outlining on students’ argumentative writing performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 557–574.
37.
Di VestaF. J.GrayG. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14.
38.
DumkeD.SchäferG. (1986). Verbesserung des lernens aus texten durch trainiertes unterstrichen [Improving text learning by trained underlining]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 33, 210–219.
39.
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, 4–58.
40.
EggenP. D.KauchakD. P.KirkS. (1978). The effect of hierarchical cues on the learning of concepts from prose materials. The Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 7–11.
41.
EinsteinG. O.MorrisJ.SmithS. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.
42.
EylonB.ReifF. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task performance. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 5–44.
43.
FassW.SchumacherG. M. (1978). Effects of motivation, subject activity, and readability on the retention of prose materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 803–807.
44.
FiorellaL.MayerR. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
45.
FowlerR. L.BarkerA. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 358–364.
46.
GernsbacherM. A.VarnerK. R.FaustM. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.430
47.
GloverJ. A.CorkillA. J. (1987). Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 198–199.
48.
GlynnS. M.Di VestaF. J. (1977). Outline and hierarchical organization as aids for study and retrieval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 89–95.
49.
GoldingJ. M.WasarhaleyN. E.FletcherB. (2012). The use of flashcards in an introduction to psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 199–202.
50.
GurungR. A. R.WeidertJ.JeskeA. (2010). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, 28–35.
51.
HaenggiD.PerfettiC. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 182–192.
52.
HartleyJ. (1976). Lecture handouts and student note-taking. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 13, 58–64.
53.
HartleyJ.BartlettS.BranthwaiteA. (1980). Underlining can make a difference: Sometimes. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 218–224.
54.
HartwigM. K.DunloskyJ. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126–134.
55.
HausmanH.KornellN. (2014). Mixing topics while studying does not enhance learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 153–160.
56.
HoonP. W. (1974). Efficacy of three common study methods. Psychological Reports, 35, 1057–1058.
57.
HoweM. J. A. (1970). Repeated presentation and recall of meaningful prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 214–219.
58.
IdsteinP.JenkinsJ. R. (1972). Underlining versus repetitive reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 65, 321–323.
59.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
KangS. H.PashlerH. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103.
61.
KarpickeJ. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 469–486.
62.
KarpickeJ. D.BluntJ. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.
63.
KarpickeJ. D.ButlerA. C.RoedigerH. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own?Memory, 17, 471–479.
64.
KarpickeJ. D.RoedigerH. L.III. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162.
65.
KarpickeJ. D.RoedigerH. L.III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966–968.
66.
KelloggR. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342.
67.
KiewraK. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
68.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L.KimS.RischN.ChristensenM. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 172–187.
69.
KiewraK. A.DuboisN. F.ChristensenM.KimS.LindbergN. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science, 18, 217–232.
70.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristianD.McShaneA. (1988). Providing study notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 595–597.
71.
KiewraK. A.FrankB. M. (1988). Encoding and external-storage effects of personal lecture notes, skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 81, 143–148.
72.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 94, 163–182.
73.
KlareG. R.MabryJ. E.GustafsonL. M. (1955). The relationship of patterning (underlining) to immediate retention and to acceptability of technical material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 40–42.
74.
KlemmW. R. (1976). Efficiency of handout “skeleton” notes in student learning. Improving College and University Teaching, 24, 10–12.
75.
KobayashiK. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.
76.
KobayashiK. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477.
77.
KornellN. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297–1317.
78.
KornellN.BjorkR. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.
79.
KornellN.BjorkR. A. (2008). Optimizing self-regulated study: The benefits-and costs-of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136.
80.
KornellN.SonL. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17, 493–501.
81.
KrugD.DavisT. B.GloverJ. A. (1990). Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall?Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 366–371.
82.
KulhavyR. W.DyerJ. W.SilverL. (1975). The effects of notetaking and test expectancy on the learning of text material. The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 363–365.
83.
LarsonR. B. (2009). Enhancing the recall of presented material. Computers & Education, 53, 1278–1284.
84.
LeichtK. L.CashenV. M. (1972). Type of highlighted material and examination performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 65, 315–316.
85.
LeutnerD.LeopoldC.Den Elzen-RumpV. (2007). Self-regulated learning with a text-highlighting strategy: A training experiment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 174–182.
86.
LittleJ. L.McDanielM. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory & Cognition, 43, 85–98.
87.
LorchR. F.LorchE. P.KlusewitzM. A. (1995). Effects of typographical cues on reading and recall of text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 51–64.
88.
LutesL. D.DaissS. R.BargerS. D.ReadM.SteinbaughE.WinettR. A. (2012). Small changes approach promotes initial and continued weight loss with a phone-based follow-up: Nine-month outcomes from ASPIRES II. American Journal of Health Promotion, 26, 235–238.
89.
MartinN. D.NguyenK.McDanielM. A. (2016). Structure building differences impact learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 52–60.
90.
MathewsC. O. (1938). Comparison of methods of study for immediate and delayed recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 101–106.
91.
MayerR. E. (1975). Information processing variables in learning to solve problems. Review of Educational Research, 45, 525–541.
92.
MayerR. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 770–784.
93.
MayerR. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49.
94.
MayerR. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
95.
McCabeJ. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462–476.
96.
McDanielM. A.BuggJ. M.LiuY.BrickJ. (2015). When does the test-study-test sequence optimize learning and retention?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 370–382.
97.
McDanielM. A.HowardD. C.EinsteinG. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20, 516–522.
98.
McNamaraD. S.O’ReillyT. P.BestR. M.OzuruY. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with ISTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.
99.
MeyerB. J. F.MiddlemissW.TheodorouE.BrezinskiK. L.McDougallJ.BartlettB. J. (2002). Effects of structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the Internet with and without the aid of older adult tutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 486–519.
100.
MeyerB. J. F.PoonL. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
101.
MeyerB. J. F.RayM. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 127–152.
102.
MeyerB. J. F.RiceG. E. (1989). Prose processing in adulthood: The text, the reader, and the task. In PoonL. W.RubinD. C.WilsonB. A. (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life (pp. 157–194). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
103.
MeyerB. J. F.WijekumarK. K. (2017). Intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy: A reading strategy tutor. In CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 82–103). New York, NY: Routledge.
104.
MeyerB. J. F.WijekumarK. K.LinY. C. (2011). Individualizing a web-based structure strategy intervention for fifth graders’ comprehension of nonfiction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 140–168.
105.
MeyerB. J. F.YoungC. J.BartlettB. J. (2014). Memory improved: Enhanced reading comprehension and memory across the life span through strategic text structure. New York, NY: Psychology Press. (Original work published 1989)
106.
MiyatsuT.McDanielM. A. (2018). Adding the keyword mnemonic to retrieval practice: A potent combination for foreign language vocabulary learning? Manuscript submitted for publication.
107.
MonroeW. S. (1921). Types of learning required of pupils in the seventh and eighth grades and in the high school (Bureau of Educational Research Bulletin No. 7). Urbana: University of Illinois.
108.
MontisK. K. (2007). Guided notes: An interactive method for success in secondary and college mathematics classrooms. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29, 55–68.
109.
MuellerP. A.OppenheimerD. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168.
110.
MulliganN. W.PetersonD. J. (2015). Negative and positive testing effects in terms of item-specific and relational information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 859–871.
111.
NguyenK.McDanielM. A. (2016). The JOIs of text comprehension: Supplementing retrieval practice to enhance inference performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 59–71.
112.
NistS. L.HogrebeM. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual information. Reading Research and Instruction, 27, 12–25.
113.
NistS. L.KirbyK. (1989). The text marking patterns of college students. Reading Psychology, 10, 321–338.
114.
PeperR. J.MayerR. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514–522.
115.
PetersonS. E. (1992). The cognitive functions of underlining as a study technique. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 49–56.
116.
PreissR. W.GayleB. M. (2006). A meta-analysis of the educational benefits of employing advanced organizers. In B. M., Gayle, R. W., Preiss, N., BurrellAllenM. (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 329–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
117.
PycM. A.RawsonK. A. (2007). Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1917–1927.
118.
PycM. A.RawsonK. A. (2011). Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test-restudy practice: Implications for student learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 87–95.
119.
RawsonK. A. (2012). Why do rereading lag effects depend on test delay?Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 870–884.
120.
RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 69–80.
121.
RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 283–302.
122.
RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ.ThiedeK. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.
123.
RawsonK. A.KintschW. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80.
124.
RayM. N.MeyerB. J. F. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 67–82.
125.
RickardsJ. P.AugustG. J. (1975). Generative underlining strategies in prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 860–865.
126.
RickardsJ. P.DennerP. R. (1979). Depressive effects of underlining and adjunct questions on children’s recall of text. Instructional Science, 8, 81–90.
127.
RoedigerH. L.IIIKarpickeJ. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.
RoedigerH. L.IIIPycM. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 242–248.
130.
RussellI. J.CarisT. N.HarrisG. D.HendricsonW. D. (1983). Effects of three types of lecture notes on medical student achievement. Journal of Medical Education, 58, 627–636.
131.
SchellingsG. L.Van Hout-WoltersB. H.VermuntJ. D. (1996). Individual differences in adapting to three different tasks of selecting information from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 423–446.
132.
SchmidmaierR.EbersbachR.SchillerM.HegeI.HolzerM.FischerM. R. (2011). Using electronic flashcards to promote learning in medical students: Retesting versus restudying. Medical Education, 45, 1101–1110.
SegalJ.ChipmanS.GlaserR. (1985). Relating instruction to basic research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
135.
SenzakiS.HackathornJ.ApplebyD. C.GurungR. A. (2017). Reinventing flashcards to increase student learning. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16, 353–368.
136.
SilversV. L.KreinerD. S. (1997). The effects of pre-existing inappropriate highlighting on reading comprehension. Literacy Research and Instruction, 36, 217–223.
137.
SoderstromN. C.BjorkR. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 176–199.
138.
SoderstromN. C.KerrT. K.BjorkR. A. (2016). The critical importance of retrieval and spacing for learning. Psychological Science, 27, 223–230.
139.
Stine-MorrowE. A. L.GagneD. D.MorrowD. G.DeWallB. H. (2004). Age differences in rereading. Memory & Cognition, 32, 696–710.
140.
StordahlK. E.ChristensenC. M. (1956). The effect of study techniques on comprehension and retention. The Journal of Educational Research, 49, 561–570.
141.
TaylorB. M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323–340.
142.
TaylorB. M.BeachR. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.
143.
TaylorK.RohrerD. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837–848.
144.
ThiedeK. W.DunloskyJ. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.
145.
ToddW. B.KesslerC. C. (1971). Influence of response mode, sex, reading ability, and level of difficulty on four measures of recall of meaningful written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 229–234.
146.
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, 148–160.
147.
TuckmanB. W. (1993). The coded elaborative outline as a strategy to help students learn from text. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 5–13.
148.
TulvingE. (1966). Subjective organization and effects of repetition in multi-trial free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 193–197.
149.
VaughnK. E.RawsonK. A. (2011). Diagnosing criterion-level effects on memory: What aspects of memory are enhanced by repeated retrieval?Psychological Science, 22, 1127–1131.
150.
VerkoeijenP. P. J. L.RikersR. M. J. P.OzsoyB. (2008). Distributed rereading can hurt the spacing effect in text memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 685–695.
151.
WahlheimC. N.DunloskyJ.JacobyL. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39, 750–763.
152.
WalvoordB. E.AndersonV. J.BreihanJ. R.McCarthyL. P.RobinsonS. M.ShermanA. K. (1995). Functions of outlining among college students in four disciplines. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 390–421.
153.
WeinsteinC. E.GoetzE. T.AlexanderP. A. (1988). Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
154.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 987–1013.
155.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366–379.
156.
WijekumarK. K.MeyerB. J. F.LeiP.LinY. C.JohnsonL. A.SpielvogelJ. A.. . . CookM. (2014). Multisite randomized controlled trial examining intelligent tutoring of structure strategy for fifth-grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 331–357.
157.
WilliamsJ. P.HallK. M.LauerK. D.StaffordK. B.DeSistoL. A.deCaniJ. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538–550.
158.
WillmoreD. J. (1966). A comparison of four methods of studying a college textbook. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts, 27, 2413a. University Microfilms No. 67888.
159.
WissmanK. T.RawsonK. A.PycM. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards?Memory, 20, 568–579.
160.
WittrockM. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.
161.
YanV. X.ThaiK. P.BjorkR. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulated learning: Do they vary with mindset?Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 140–152.
162.
YueC. L.StormB. C.KornellN.BjorkE. L. (2015). Highlighting and its relation to distributed study and students’ metacognitive beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 69–78.
