Katherine A. Rawson

Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology

Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students’ performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students’ performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research.

Why Testing Improves Memory: Mediator Effectiveness Hypothesis

Testing not only evaluates the state of memory, but also improves memory more than restudy. A wealth of research has established that practice tests improve memory for the tested material. Although the benefits of practice tests are well documented, the mechanisms underlying testing effects are not well understood. We propose the mediator effectiveness hypothesis, which states that more-effective mediators (that is, information linking cues to targets) are generated during practice involving tests with restudy versus during restudy only. Effective mediators must be retrievable at time of test and must elicit the target response. We evaluated these two components of mediator effectiveness for learning foreign language translations during practice involving either test-restudy or restudy only. Supporting the mediator effectiveness hypothesis, test-restudy practice resulted in mediators that were more likely to be retrieved and more likely to elicit targets on a final test.

The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials

Guided by a hypothesis that integrates principles of monitoring from a cue-based framework of metacognitive judgments with assumptions about levels of text representation derived from theories of comprehension, we discovered that rereading improves metacomprehension accuracy. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants read texts either once or twice, rated their comprehension for each text, and then were tested on the material. In both experiments, correlations between comprehension ratings and test scores were reliably greater for participants who reread texts than for participants who read texts only once. Furthermore, in contrast to the low levels of accuracy typically reported in the literature, rereading produced relatively high levels of accuracy, with the median gamma between ratings and test performance being +.60 across participants from both experiments. Our discussion focuses on two alternative hypotheses—that improved accuracy is an artifact of when judgments are collected or that it results from increased reliability of test performance—and on evidence that is inconsistent with these explanations for the rereading effect.

Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough?

The literature on testing effects is vast but supports surprisingly few prescriptive conclusions for how to schedule practice to achieve both durable and efficient learning. Key limitations are that few studies have examined the effects of initial learning criterion or the effects of relearning, and no prior research has examined the combined effects of these 2 factors. Across 3 experiments, 533 students learned conceptual material via retrieval practice with restudy. Items were practiced until they were correctly recalled from 1 to 4 times during an initial learning session and were then practiced again to 1 correct recall in 1-5 subsequent relearning sessions (across experiments, more than 100,000 short-answer recall responses were collected and hand-scored). Durability was measured by cued recall and rate of relearning 1-4 months after practice, and efficiency was measured by total practice trials across sessions. A consistent qualitative pattern emerged: The effects of initial learning criterion and relearning were subadditive, such that the effects of initial learning criterion were strong prior to relearning but then diminished as relearning increased. Relearning had pronounced effects on long-term retention with a relatively minimal cost in terms of additional practice trials. On the basis of the overall patterns of durability and efficiency, our prescriptive conclusion for students is to practice recalling concepts to an initial criterion of 3 correct recalls and then to relearn them 3 times at widely spaced intervals.

Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing

In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the hypothesis that performance predictions for text are based on ease of processing. In each experiment, participants read texts, predicted their performance for each one, and then were tested. Ease of processing was manipulated by having participants read texts that varied in coherence. Coherence was varied by manipulating causal relatedness across sentence pairs (Experiments 1 and 2) and by altering the structure of sentences within paragraphs (Experiment 3). In these experiments, prediction magnitudes increased as coherence increased, suggesting that predictions were based on processing ease. In Experiment 4, prediction magnitudes were greater for intact paragraphs than for paragraphs with letters deleted from some of the words. Discussion focuses on resolving apparent inconsistencies in the literature concerning whether processing ease influences performance predictions.

Rereading Effects Depend on Time of Test.

Previous research has shown better text learning after rereading versus 1 reading of a text. However, rereading effects have only been explored using immediate tests, whereas most students face delays between study and test. In 2 experiments, 423 college students read a text once, twice in massed fashion, or twice with 1 week between trials. Students were tested either immediately or 2 days after study. On an immediate test, performance was greater after massed versus single reading, whereas performance for distributed rereading was not significantly greater than after single reading. On a delayed test, performance was greater after distributed versus single reading, whereas performance for massed rereading and single reading no longer differed significantly.

The METER: A Brief, Self-Administered Measure of Health Literacy

BackgroundGiven rapidly accumulating evidence that health literacy is correlated with important health-related measures, assessing patients’ health literacy level is of increasing concern for researchers and practitioners. Practical limitations for use of existing health literacy measures include length of time and practitioner involvement in administration.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a brief, self-administered measure of health literacy, the Medical Term Recognition Test (METER).Participants155 participants were recruited from an outpatient cardiology program at an urban hospital.MeasuresPatients completed measures of health literacy (METER and REALM), neuropsychological function, psychosocial health, and self-report questionnaires about health behaviors. Indicators of cardiovascular health were also recorded from patients’ medical charts.Key resultsThe measure took 2 min to complete. The internal consistency of the METER was 0.93, and it correlated highly with REALM (r = 0.74). Regarding sensitivity and specificity for identifying individuals below REALM’s cutoff for functional literacy, METER resulted in 75% correct identifications and 8% false positives. METER and REALM were both associated with various health-related measures (including significant correlations with measures of neuropsychological function and cardiovascular health).ConclusionsThese initial findings show that the METER is a quick and practical measure of health literacy for use in clinical settings.

Why is test-restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis.

Although the memorial benefits of testing are well established empirically, the mechanisms underlying this benefit are not well understood. The authors evaluated the mediator shift hypothesis, which states that test-restudy practice is beneficial for memory because retrieval failures during practice allow individuals to evaluate the effectiveness of mediators and to shift from less effective to more effective mediators. Across a series of experiments, participants used a keyword encoding strategy to learn word pairs with test-restudy practice or restudy only. Robust testing effects were obtained in all experiments, and results supported predictions of the mediator shift hypothesis. First, a greater proportion of keyword shifts occurred during test-restudy practice versus restudy practice. Second, a greater proportion of keyword shifts occurred after retrieval failure trials versus retrieval success trials during test-restudy practice. Third, a greater proportion of keywords were recalled on a final keyword recall test after test-restudy versus restudy practice.

Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials

Why do students have difficulties judging the correctness of information they recall (e.g., definitions of key concepts in textbooks), and how can students improve their judgement accuracy? To answer these questions, we had college students read six expository passages, each including four key terms with definitions. After reading a text, each key term was presented, and participants (a) attempted to recall the corresponding definition and (b) self-scored the correctness of the response (incorrect, partially correct, or entirely correct). Participants were overconfident, with inflated judgements for responses that were objectively incorrect. When participants could inspect correct definitions while judging their responses, judgement accuracy improved. Counterintuitively, however, some overconfidence remained. We discuss implications of these results for theory, education, and the two questions posed above.

Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice

Given that students typically have a sizeable amount of course material to learn but a finite amount of study time, evaluating the efficiency of study schedules is important. We explored the efficiency of various schedules of distributed retrieval plus restudy. Across two experiments, 227 undergraduates were asked to learn Swahili—English vocabulary word pairs. Inconventional schedule groups, all items were presented for 3 practice trials after initial study (as in most previous research). Indropout schedule groups, the number of practice trials allocated to each item varied, in that practice with a given item was discontinued after criterion performance had been reached. A dropout schedule led to levels of performance similar to those for conventional schedules (but in fewer trials), and it was particularly effective for learning initially incorrect items. However, the efficiency of the various schedules depended critically on the interval between presentations of an item. Results suggest that dropout can be a more efficient learning schedule for students than can conventional schedules of practice.