The Science of Studying: What Actually Works

In 2013, five cognitive psychologists did education an enormous favour: they reviewed ten of the most common study techniques against decades of evidence and published the league table. The results overturn most student instinct — and most revision advice.

The league table

Dunlosky and colleagues (2013) rated techniques by the breadth and strength of their evidence. At the top, two clear winners: practice testing — retrieving knowledge from memory via self-quizzing, flashcards, past questions — and distributed practice — spacing study across days and weeks rather than massing it. In the middle, promising tools like elaborative interrogation (asking “why is this true?”), self-explanation and interleaved practice. And at the bottom, rated low utility despite near-universal use: highlighting, re-reading and summarising as typically done. The techniques students use most are the ones that work least.

Why the good ones work

Retrieval strengthens memory in the act of using it — Roediger and Karpicke (2006) showed testing beats re-study even when the re-study time is equal. Spacing works because forgetting a little before revisiting forces reconstruction, which deepens the trace. Both feel worse than re-reading, which produces fluent recognition and the comfortable illusion of knowing. The discomfort is the signature of learning; the fluency is the signature of familiarity.

What to change on Sunday night

Turn notes into questions and answer them from memory before checking. Space subjects across the week instead of blocking one per evening. Close the book before summarising. Use past papers early as practice, not late as diagnosis. And expect it to feel harder — that is the point, and saying so in advance stops able students retreating to comfortable methods the first time retrieval stings.

These are the methods our practice tools are built on — retrieval and spacing by design, not willpower: the Talent Framework.

References

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.