Mastermind Learning Class For All Students

Mindset Training And Some Learning Techniques

An Exhaustive Analysis of Evidence-Based Learning Techniques

Types of information

Subject Based on the

Type Meaning
type

Knowledge of the Science: Understanding

interrelationships between the Theory of Evolution.
basic facts and elements that
Conceptual form a larger, coherent
Knowledge structure. It includes
knowledge of classifications, Economics: Grasping
principles, theories, and the law of supply and
models. demand.

Mathematics: Knowing
Knowledge of "how to do the steps (algorithm) for
something". This includes whole-number division.
knowledge of subject-specific
Procedural
skills, algorithms, techniques,
Knowledge
and methods, as well as the
criteria for knowing when to Science: Knowing the
use them. steps of the scientific
method.

Analogous This is a cognitive process Physics: Using the solar

(or more than a static type of system (planets orbiting
 Subject Based on the
Type Meaning
type

Analogical) knowledge. It involves a sun) as an analogy to

Reasoning understanding a new or explain the structure of
complex idea by drawing an atom (electrons
parallels to a familiar one. It's orbiting a nucleus).
about reframing new
information using existing
knowledge to find a shared
relational structure. History: Explaining the
French Revolution by
comparing its characters
and events to The Lion
King.

Education: Using
learning techniques like
practice testing, which
research has proven to
This term typically refers to
be effective, instead of
"evidence-based practices." It
ineffective practices like
is knowledge (e.g., a skill,
zero-tolerance policies.
Evidence- technique, or strategy) that
Based has been validated and proven
Knowledge effective through rigorous
scientific research, as opposed
Medicine: A doctor
to being based on tradition or
choosing a treatment
intuition.
plan that has been
validated by systematic
reviews and randomized
controlled trials.
 Subject Based on the
Type Meaning
type

This describes knowledge that Academic Writing (Any

is supported by citations to Subject): A research
other sources. In academic and paper in psychology,
research settings, referencing history, or law that
Referenced
is used to give credit to includes a bibliography
Knowledge
original authors and provide and in-text citations to
evidence that an argument is support its claims and
backed by reliable provide evidence for its
information. conclusions.

I. Introduction: The Critical Need for Effective Learning Strategies

A central premise of cognitive and educational psychology is that a significant
gap exists between the learning techniques students believe are effective and
those that are proven to be effective through decades of research. Many students
rely heavily on strategies that are relatively ineffective, such as rereading,
highlighting, and summarization. Conversely, techniques with high utility,
such as practice testing and distributed practice, are often underutilized yet are
shown to produce more durable, long-term learning.1
For each of the 10 techniques, this report will provide:
1. The name of the technique.
2. The methodology of key studies.
3. The results of performance, including a detailed analysis of all 14 figures
from the monograph.
4. A synthesized list of pros and cons.
5. Actionable recommendations for effective implementation.
6. A practical, domain-specific example of its use.
The analysis begins with the techniques assessed by the monograph as having
"moderate utility."

II. Analysis of Moderate-Utility Techniques: Part 1

1. Elaborative Interrogation
1.1. The Name of the Technique
Elaborative Interrogation.1 This technique involves the learner generating an
explanation for why an explicitly stated fact or concept is true.
1.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
The foundational paradigm for this technique was established in studies such as
Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, and Ahmad (1987).1 In a typical
experiment, undergraduate participants are presented with a list of discrete
factual sentences (e.g., "The hungry man got into the car").
• Elaborative-Interrogation (EI) Group: For each sentence, participants are
prompted to answer a "Why?" question. For instance, "Why did that
particular man do that?"
• Explanation-Provided Group: This group is given the same sentence
along with an explanation (e.g., "The hungry man got into the car to go
to the restaurant").
• Reading-Control Group: This group simply reads the original sentences.
Later, all participants are administered a cued-recall test (e.g., "Who got in the
car?"), requiring them to recall the specific subject of the sentence.1 Other
studies have used this same methodology with different factual materials, such
as facts about animals or science concepts.

1.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 1)

In the seminal studies, the results were striking: the Elaborative-Interrogation

group's accuracy (approximately 72%) "substantially outperformed" both the
explanation-provided group (approximately 37%) and the reading-control group
(approximately 37%).1 This result demonstrates a critical mechanism: the
generation of an explanation, not merely being exposed to one, is what
enhances learning. The prevailing theory is that EI "enhances learning by
supporting the integration of new information with existing prior knowledge."
By answering "Why," a learner "activate[s] schemata" that organize the new
information and link it to what is already known.1
This mechanism is the key to understanding Figure 1: Mean percentage of
correct responses on a final test for learners with high or low domain
knowledge... (Woloshyn, Pressley, & Schneider, 1992).1
• Analysis of Figure 1: This study utilized Canadian and German students,
presenting them with facts about both Canadian provinces and German
states. This design cleverly created a high-knowledge condition (e.g.,
Canadians learning about Canada) and a low-knowledge condition (e.g.,
Canadians learning about Germany) for each group.1
• Data: The dark bars represent the Elaborative Interrogation group, and
the light bars represent the Reading Control group.
o High Knowledge: For learners in the high-knowledge condition, EI
produced a massive 24-percentage-point benefit over the reading
control (approximately 73% vs. 49%).
o Low Knowledge: For learners in the low-knowledge condition, EI
produced a much smaller benefit of 12 percentage points
(approximately 43% vs. 31%).
• Interpretation: This figure provides powerful evidence that the
effectiveness of EI is moderated by prior knowledge. The technique works
by helping a student link new facts to an existing knowledge structure. If
that structure is weak or non-existent (low knowledge), the technique has
fewer "hooks" to attach the new fact to, and its benefit is significantly
reduced, though not eliminated.1
1.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o Significant Performance Boost: Clearly outperforms simple
rereading and even having explanations provided.1
 o Minimal Training: The technique is simple to implement. Learners
typically require only brief instructions and 3-4 practice items.1
o Reasonable Time Demands: The technique is "relatively
reasonable" regarding time. One self-paced study showed only a
minor increase in total study time (32 minutes vs. 28 minutes).1
o Broad Age Range: Effects have been documented for high school,
middle school, and upper elementary students (fourth-sixth grade),
as well as for students with learning disabilities.1
• Cons:
o High Dependence on Prior Knowledge: As Figure 1 demonstrates,
the benefit for low-knowledge learners is "less certain" and
significantly smaller. Learners with high knowledge profit the
most.1
o Narrow Applicability: The technique has been "applied (and may
be applicable) only to discrete units of factual information." It is
unclear how a student would use it to learn a complex causal
process, a mathematical proof, or abstract concepts.1
o Uncertain Benefit for Comprehension: The vast majority of studies
have used "associative-memory measures" (cued recall, matching).
Its benefits for higher-level comprehension, recall, or problem-
solving are "less certain".1
o Dosage is Critical: The benefits can be "substantially diluted" or
even "reversed" if the "Why?" prompts are administered too
infrequently (e.g., one prompt every 1-2 pages).1

1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them

Based on the analysis, this technique should be used under specific conditions:
1. For Factual Lists: Use when the goal is to learn a set of discrete facts (e.g.,
anatomy parts, historical dates, scientific definitions).
2. Frequently: The "Why?" prompt must be used often, such as after every
new fact or, in a text, after every paragraph.
 3. Activate Prior Knowledge: The learner must genuinely attempt to
connect the fact to what they already know. If they have no prior
knowledge, the first step should be to build a basic framework.
4. Self-Generation: The learner must generate their own explanation.
Simply reading someone else's explanation is no better than rereading.1

1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It

• Subject: Introductory Psychology
• To-Be-Learned Facts:
1. Fact 1: "Dopamine is a neurotransmitter involved in reward and
motivation."
2. Fact 2: "Cocaine blocks the reuptake of dopamine."
• Ineffective Use (Rereading): Reading both sentences five times.
• Effective Use (Elaborative Interrogation):
1. Read Fact 1. Ask: "Why would dopamine be related to reward? Why
would the brain need a 'reward' chemical?" Generated Answer: "To
motivate behavior essential for survival, like eating or finding a
mate."
2. Read Fact 2. Ask: "Why would blocking dopamine reuptake be
relevant?" Generated Answer: "If reuptake is blocked, the dopamine
stays in the synapse longer. Based on Fact 1, this means it would
over-stimulate the 'reward' pathway, which explains why it's
addictive."

2. Self-Explanation
2.1. The Name of the Technique
Self-Explanation.1 This technique involves having students explain some aspect
of their processing during learning, such as explaining how new information
relates to known information or explaining the steps taken during problem-
solving.
2.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
This technique is related to Elaborative Interrogation but is broader and often
applied to more complex, procedural tasks. In the seminal study by Berry (1983),
participants were first given a minimal explanation of a logical rule (e.g., "if P,
then Q") and then solved a set of concrete practice problems (e.g., involving
flavors of jam and sale prices).1
• Concurrent Self-Explanation Group: Prompted to "self-explain while
solving each problem by stating the reasons for choosing or not choosing
each card."
• Retrospective Self-Explanation Group: Solved all problems, and only then
were asked to explain how they did it.
• Control Group: Not prompted to explain at any point.
The crucial criterion task was a transfer test using abstract problems that
required applying the same logical rules.1 Other studies have used this
methodology to examine math problem-solving or comprehension of expository
texts.
2.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 2)
In the Berry (1983) study, all three groups performed well on the initial concrete
practice problems (90% or better). The critical difference appeared on the
transfer test.
• Analysis of Figure 2: Mean percentage of logical-reasoning problems
answered correctly... (Berry, 1983).1
o Data (Concrete Practice): All three groups (Concurrent SE,
Retrospective SE, No SE) performed at or above 90% accuracy.
This shows that all groups could do the practice problems.
o Data (Abstract Transfer): The groups diverged dramatically. The
Concurrent Self-Explanation group maintained ~90% accuracy.
The Retrospective group dropped to ~70%. The No Self-
Explanation control group plummeted to ~45%.
• Interpretation: This figure is a powerful illustration of transfer. The
control group learned to solve the specific concrete problems but failed to
extract the abstract rule required to solve new, different problems. Self-
explanation, especially when done concurrently (during the solving
 process), was the mechanism that enabled learners to generalize their
knowledge to new, unfamiliar situations.1
2.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o Broad Applicability: A major strength. Effects have been shown
"across several different task domains," including logical reasoning,
mathematics (algebra, geometry), pattern learning, chess, and
learning from narrative and expository texts.1
o Improves Transfer: Self-explanation facilitates an "impressive
range of learning outcomes," including memory, comprehension,
and crucially, near and far transfer (solving novel problems).1
o Broad Age Range: Effects have been demonstrated with
undergraduates, high schoolers, and even elementary and
kindergarten students.1
o Minimal Training: In "almost all" studies reporting positive effects,
participants were given "minimal instructions and little to no
practice" with the technique.1
• Cons:
o Significant Time Demands: The time demands are "nontrivial."
One study (Chi et al., 1994) found that self-explanation doubled the
total time on task compared to a rereading control (125 minutes vs.
66 minutes).1
o Durability is "Woefully Underexplored": "Almost every study to
date" has administered the final test within minutes of the learning
phase. The durability of these benefits over days or weeks is almost
completely unknown.1
o Quality Varies: Some students, particularly those with poor skills,
may simply paraphrase the material rather than explain it. The
quality of the explanation correlates with performance, suggesting
some students may need training.1
 o Not Adequately Evaluated in Educational Contexts: There is a lack
of robust evidence showing it works in representative educational
contexts.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Use it "Concurrently": As Figure 2 shows, explaining during the process is
more effective than explaining after the fact.1
2. Focus on Process: The goal is to explain how and why. Use prompts like:
"What new information does this provide?" "How does this relate to
what I already know?" "Why am I taking this step in the problem?"
3. Target Problem-Solving: This technique is ideal for learning procedural
tasks or "problem-solving" domains (math, science, logic) where the goal
is to apply knowledge to new situations.
4. Combine with Text: When reading a text, pause after every sentence or
paragraph to explain how it connects to the previous content.1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Physics (learning from a worked example of a projectile motion
problem).
• Ineffective Use (Rereading): Reading the example problem and its
solution 3-4 times until it looks familiar.
• Effective Use (Self-Explanation): Cover the solution and try to solve it,
explaining each step aloud.
1. "First, the problem asks for the maximum height. The text says to
use the formula $v_f^2 = v_i^2 + 2ad$."
2. "OK, why that formula? Because this problem involves
displacement (d), initial velocity (v_i), and acceleration (a), and we
know the final velocity (v_f) at the maximum height is 0. This
formula connects all those variables."
3. "Next, I need to isolate 'd'. Why? Because 'd' represents the
displacement, which is the height I'm looking for."
III. Analysis of Low-Utility Techniques
The following five techniques were rated as "Low Utility" by the monograph.
This low rating is particularly noteworthy for highlighting and rereading, as
they are among the most popular strategies students report using.1
3. Summarization
3.1. The Name of the Technique
Summarization.1 This technique involves "writing summaries (of various
lengths) of to-be-learned texts."
3.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
A key challenge in evaluating this technique is that "summarization is not one
strategy but a family of strategies".1 A "summary" can range from a single word
to a long paragraph, be written with or without the text present, etc.
In a prototypical study by Bretzing and Kulhavy (1979), high school students
studied a 2,000-word text on a fictitious tribe. They were divided into five
groups 1:
1. Summarization Group: After each page, wrote three lines to summarize
the main points.
2. Note-taking Group: Took three lines of notes on each page.
3. Verbatim-Copying Group: Copied the three "most important" lines from
each page.
4. Letter-Search Group: A shallow processing control (copied capitalized
words).
5. Control Group: Read only.
The criterion task was a 25-item test requiring the connection of information,
given either immediately or 1 week later.1
3.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 3)
The effectiveness of summarization is highly dependent on the quality of the
summary produced.
• Analysis of Figure 3: Mean number of correct responses on a test
occurring shortly after study... (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979).1
 o Data: On both the "Immediate Test" and the "Delayed Test" (1
week), the Summarization group and the Note-Taking group
performed best, and were nearly identical.
o Interpretation: This figure shows that summarization is beneficial
compared to passive strategies (reading) or shallow strategies (letter
search). The fact that it also significantly outperformed the
Verbatim-copying group demonstrates that the key benefit comes
from the active processing of synthesizing and "writing about the
important points in one's own words," not just selecting important
information.1
• The "Quality" Caveat: Despite the result in Figure 3, other research (e.g.,
Bednall & Kehoe, 2011, summarized in Table 3 of the monograph) found a
high correlation between the quality of a student's summary and their
later test performance. For example, the number of correct definitions in
a summary was positively correlated (e.g., $r =.52$ with an application
test) with performance. If a student writes a poor summary that misses
the main points or includes incorrect information, the act of summarizing
will not be effective.1
3.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o Better than Passive Reading: As Figure 3 shows, it is more effective
than just rereading or verbatim copying.1
o Effective for Skilled Users: "It can be an effective learning strategy
for learners who are already skilled at summarizing".1
o Promotes Active Processing: It forces the learner to "identify and
organize the main ideas within a text".1
o Good for Generative Tests: Summarization seems to benefit
performance more on tasks that require production (free recall,
essays) than on recognition (multiple-choice).1
• Cons:
o Requires Extensive Training: This is its primary weakness. Most
learners (middle school, high school, and even "underprepared
 college students") are not skilled at summarizing and "will require
extensive training," making it "less feasible".1
o Training is Intensive: Successful training programs are very time-
consuming. One required 90 minutes of training for teachers, who
then implemented five 45- to 50-minute sessions of direct
instruction, modeling, and practice for students.1
o Vague Definition: The "family of strategies" problem makes it
difficult to provide general recommendations. Its effectiveness
depends heavily on the length of the summary, whether the text is
present, etc..1
o Mixed Results: Its benefits are "mixed" regarding which tasks it
actually helps. One study found it hurt performance on evaluation
and synthesis questions.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Only if Skilled: This technique is only recommended for students who
have already been trained in how to summarize effectively.
2. Summarize from Memory: Though the evidence is mixed, summarizing
without the text present may be more beneficial. This forces retrieval (like
practice testing) and prevents the student from "engaging in verbatim
copying".1
3. Use as Part of Training: Summarization is perhaps best viewed as an
instructional goal in its own right (learning to write a good summary)
rather than a simple, universal study technique.1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Reading a dense academic article.
• Ineffective Use (Poor Skill): Writing a "summary" that is just a
collection of copied sentences and highlighted key terms, missing the
main argument.
• Effective Use (Skilled User):
1. Read the entire "Methods" section of the article.
2. Close the article (or turn the page).
 3. Write 2-3 sentences from memory in your own words that describe
the participants, the experimental design, and the primary variable
being measured.
4. Check your summary against the text for accuracy.
4. Highlighting and Underlining
4.1. The Name of the Technique
Highlighting and Underlining.1 The monograph treats these as equivalent.
They involve "marking potentially important portions of to-be-learned
materials while reading" and are among the most common behaviors reported
by students.1
4.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
In a prototypical experiment by Fowler and Barker (1974), undergraduates read
articles totaling approximately 8,000 words.1
• Active-Highlighting Group: Students were free to highlight as much of
the texts as they wanted.
• Passive-Highlighting Group: Students read a text that had already been
marked by a yoked participant from the active group.
• Control Group: Read-only.
All groups had 1 hour to study. They returned 1 week later, were allowed to
review their materials for 10 minutes, and then took a 54-item multiple-choice
test.1
4.3. The Results of the Performances (No Figures)
The results for this popular technique are overwhelmingly negative.
• Finding 1 (Overall): "Overall, the highlighting groups did not outperform
the control group on the final test".1 This finding is "unfortunately...
echoed in much of the literature".1
• Finding 2 (The Isolation Effect): In the active-highlighting group,
students did perform better on test items corresponding to the text they
had personally highlighted. However, this benefit to marked items was
"accompanied by a small cost on test questions probing information that
had not been highlighted".1
 • Finding 3 (Amount Matters): In the Fowler & Barker (1974) study, test
performance was negatively correlated (r = –.29) with the amount of text
highlighted. The more a student highlighted, the worse they performed.1
This suggests students are very poor at identifying the most important
information and "overmark" the text, which "reduces the degree to which
marked text is distinguished".1
• Finding 4 (Harm to Higher-Level Tasks): Highlighting may be
"detrimental to later ability to make inferences".1 A study by Peterson
(1992) found that students who underlined performed worse on inference
questions. The authors hypothesize that "standard underlining draws
attention more to individual concepts (supporting memory for facts) than
to connections across concepts (as required by the inference questions)".1
4.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o Simple and Low-Effort: The technique is "simple to use, do not
entail training, and do not require students to invest much time".1
o Engaging (Actively): Active highlighting (choosing what to mark)
is better than passive reading of pre-marked text.1
o Can work if...: It may help if students have the prior knowledge to
highlight correctly 1, or if they are forced to mark sparingly (e.g.,
only one sentence per paragraph).1
• Cons:
o Does Not Boost Performance: In "most situations... and with most
participants, highlighting does little to boost performance".1
o May Harm Inference: It may actually hurt performance on higher-
level tasks that require making inferences.1
o Creates "Illusion of Fluency": Its primary danger is that it is
"problematic to the extent that it prevents students from engaging
in other, more productive strategies".1 It feels productive, but it is a
passive, low-effort task.
 o Students are Unskilled: Students tend to highlight far too much,
which negates any benefit and is negatively correlated with
performance.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
Given its low utility, the best recommendation is to replace it. However, if
students are "likely to continue to use this popular technique," it must be
modified 1:
1. Read First, Highlight Second: Never highlight on the first read-through.
Read a full section or chapter first to understand the main ideas. Then, go
back and sparingly mark the single most important sentence or concept in
each paragraph.
2. Use as a Precursor: Highlighting should not be the end of studying. Use
the highlighted information as the raw material for a better strategy, such
as turning those concepts into practice test questions or flashcards.
3. Actively Search: Instead of passively highlighting what "seems"
important, use it as an active search. For example, before reading,
formulate a question (see Elaborative Interrogation) and then highlight
only the text that answers that specific question.
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Biology.
• Ineffective Use (Typical): Reading a chapter on cellular respiration and
highlighting 15-20 sentences on a single page, coloring the text in yellow,
pink, and blue.
• Effective Use (Modified):
1. Read the entire 3-page section on "Glycolysis" without marking
anything.
2. Go back and ask, "What is the single most important 'main idea'
sentence of this whole section?"
3. Highlight only that one sentence (e.g., "Glycolysis is the metabolic
pathway that converts glucose into pyruvate, yielding a net gain of
two ATP molecules.").
 4. Now, turn that sentence into a practice test question: (Front of
flashcard) "What is glycolysis, what are its products, and what is
its net ATP gain?" (Back of flashcard) The answer.
5. The Keyword Mnemonic
5.1. The Name of the Technique
The Keyword Mnemonic.1 This is a specific imagery-based technique used to
associate verbal materials, most commonly foreign-language vocabulary.
5.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
This is a two-stage process 1:
1. Stage 1 (Acoustic Link): Find an English keyword that sounds similar to a
part of the foreign word. (e.g., For the French word la dent [tooth], the
keyword is "dentist").
2. Stage 2 (Imagery Link): Form an interactive mental image that links the
keyword to the English translation. (e.g., an image of a dentist holding a
giant tooth).
In a prototypical study by Raugh and Atkinson (1975), students learned
Spanish-English vocabulary (e.g., gusano - worm). The Keyword-Mnemonic
Group was given the keyword ("goose" for gusano) and instructed to form an
interactive image. The control group studied the pairs using their own methods
(e.g., rote repetition). The criterion task was cued recall (gusano -?).1
5.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 4)
The foundational study (Raugh & Atkinson, 1975) found that the keyword
group performed "significantly better" than the control group on the test.1
However, this short-term benefit masks a significant long-term problem, which
is the focus of Figure 4.
• Analysis of Figure 4: Mean number of items correctly recalled... (Wang,
Thomas, & Ouellette, 1992).1
o Study: This study investigated the durability of the keyword
mnemonic.
o Top Panel (Experiment 1): This panel compares the Keyword and
Rote Repetition groups. Different groups of participants were
tested either "Immediately" or after a "Delayed Test" (1 week).
 ▪ Immediate Test: The Keyword group (~19 items)
dramatically outperformed the Rote group (~14 items).
▪ Delayed Test: The benefit completely vanished. Both groups
recalled only ~5 items.
o Bottom Panel (Experiment 3): This is the critical manipulation.
The researchers gave the Rote Repetition group more practice until
their immediate test performance was equal to the Keyword group's.
▪ Immediate Test: Keyword group (~19) and Rote group (~19)
performed identically.
▪ Delayed Test: The pattern reversed. The Rote group (~17
items) now significantly outperformed the Keyword group (~12
items).
• Interpretation: This figure provides strong evidence that the keyword
mnemonic leads to "accelerated forgetting".1 It provides a powerful short-
term boost (a "cramming" tool), but the memory trace it creates is less
durable than the trace created by rote repetition. The authors suggest this
is because the "decoding" of the image at retrieval is difficult and error-
prone (e.g., "Was the image a dentist holding a tooth or pliers?").1
5.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o High Short-Term Efficacy: Very effective for boosting memory for
vocabulary in the short term (Fig 4, Top Panel).1
o Benefits Various Learners: Has been shown to help learners of
different ages, including students with learning disabilities.1
o Works for Specific Materials: Can be used to learn foreign
vocabulary, obscure definitions, and people's
names/accomplishments.1
• Cons:
o Not Durable: This is its fatal flaw. It "may not produce durable
retention" and leads to "accelerated forgetting" compared to other
techniques (Fig 4, Bottom Panel).1
 o Narrow Applicability: The technique is "difficult to implement" in
many contexts. It only works for "keyword-friendly" materials
(e.g., concrete nouns). It is very difficult to generate keywords and
images for abstract words (e.g., "democracy," "theory").1
o Requires Provided Keywords: Most studies provide the keywords.
Students are often not successful at generating their own effective
keywords.1
o Mixed Classroom Results: It failed to benefit high school students
in an actual French course.1
o Less Efficient: Given the time for training and keyword generation,
it is "not highly efficient" and is outperformed by practice testing.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Use as a Short-Term "Crutch": This technique should only be used to
create a rapid, temporary memory trace for concrete vocabulary (e.g., for
a quiz tomorrow).
2. Target Keyword-Friendly Content: Do not try to apply it to abstract
concepts. It works best for concrete noun pairs (e.g., la clef [key] ->
keyword "cliff" -> image of a key on a cliff).
3. Transition to Retrieval: Once the mnemonic has helped establish an
initial link, the student should immediately transition to a more durable
strategy, like practice testing (e.g., using flashcards) to strengthen the
link and bypass the image-based crutch.
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Spanish Vocabulary.
• To-Be-Learned Word: Gusano (worm).
• Ineffective Use (Rote): "Gusano-worm, gusano-worm, gusano-worm..."
• Effective Use (Keyword Mnemonic):
1. Keyword: Gusano sounds like "Goose."
2. Image: Create a vivid mental image of a goose with a large, pink
worm hanging from its beak.
 3. Test: When you see gusano, you think "goose," which retrieves the
image, and you see the worm. (Note: You must then drop this
mnemonic and practice retrieving "worm" directly from "gusano"
to make it durable).
6. Imagery Use for Text Learning
6.1. The Name of the Technique
Imagery Use for Text Learning.1 This technique involves "attempting to form
mental images of text materials while reading or listening."
6.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
This is a broader application of imagery than the keyword mnemonic. In a
prototypical study by Leutner, Leopold, & Sumfleth (2009), tenth graders read a
"lengthy science text" on the dipole character of water molecules.1
• Imagery Group: Instructed to "mentally imagine the content of each
paragraph using simple and clear mental images."
• Control Group: Instructed to "read the text for comprehension."
(These groups were also crossed with a drawing instruction, which was found
to be ineffective).
The criterion task was a multiple-choice test administered "soon after reading"
that included questions requiring inferences, not just rote memory.1
6.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 5)
The Leutner et al. (2009) study shows the technique's potential benefit, even
though the overall literature is weak.
• Analysis of Figure 5: Accuracy on a multiple-choice exam... (Leutner,
Leopold, & Sumfleth, 2009).1
o Data: This analysis focuses on the "No Drawing" bars. The
Imagery group (dark bar, approximately 68%) "significantly
boosted" comprehension performance compared to the No Imagery
(control) group (light bar, approximately 48%).
o Second-Order Finding (Detrimental Effect of Drawing): The
figure also clearly shows that the "Drawing" instruction negated the
benefit of imagery. The Imagery + Drawing group performed at the
same low level as the control group. This is a critical insight: the act
 of drawing is not the same as mental imagery and may even interfere
with it by consuming cognitive resources.1
• Interpretation: This study is "impressive" because it demonstrates a large
benefit (Cohen's $d = 0.72$) for a complex science text on an inference-based
test, using minimal training.1
• Contradictory Results (The Bigger Picture): Despite the promise of
Figure 5, the monograph concludes that the overall "patchwork of
inconsistent effects" means the technique's benefits are "limited and not
robust".1 Most studies find that imagery instructions do not enhance
students' understanding or application of text content.1
6.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o Potent (Sometimes): As Figure 5 shows, it can produce "dramatic"
effects on comprehension, even for complex science texts.1
o Minimal Training: It is easy to implement and does not require
extensive training.1
o Broadly Applicable: It is "more broadly applicable" than the highly
constrained keyword mnemonic.1
• Cons:
o Limited to "Imagery-Friendly" Texts: The benefits are "largely
constrained" to texts that are easy to visualize (e.g., concrete
narratives). It is not effective for abstract texts (e.g., philosophy,
law, economics).1
o Limited to Memory Tests: Despite the exception in Figure 5, the
bulk of the literature suggests that imagery benefits memory for
text, but "tend[s] not to enhance students' understanding or
application".1
o Inconsistent Effects: The literature is "filled with interactions" and
a "patchwork of inconsistent effects," making it an unreliable
strategy.1
 o Failed on Standardized Tests: Like summarization, imagery
training "failed to find an effect" on standardized reading
comprehension tests.1
o Durability Unknown: The long-term retention of information
learned via imagery is "an open question".1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Use for Concrete Texts: Only use this technique when reading material
that is "imagery friendly"—that is, text that is concrete, descriptive, or
narrative (e.g., literature, history, some biology).
2. Use When Listening: The technique may be more effective when listening
to a text (e.g., a lecture or audiobook) than when reading it. This is
because reading (visual) and imagining (visual) may compete for the
same cognitive resources.1
3. Focus on Mental Imagery: Do not substitute drawing for mental imagery.
As Figure 5 shows, drawing may "negate the benefits".1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: History (learning about a battle from a textbook).
• Ineffective Use (Rereading): Rereading the text "The infantry advanced
across the open field toward the stone wall" five times.
• Effective Use (Imagery): Pause and create a vivid mental movie: See the
color of the soldiers' uniforms, visualize the flat, open terrain, picture the
smoke from the muskets along the stone wall. This creates a much richer,
more integrated, and more memorable representation of the event.
7. Rereading
7.1. The Name of the Technique
Rereading.1 This involves "restudying text material again after an initial
reading." Along with highlighting, this is one of the most frequently reported
study strategies by students.1
7.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
In a prototypical study by Rothkopf (1968), undergraduates read an expository
text.1
 • Experimental Groups: Participants read the text 0, 1, 2, or 4 times.
• Method: The rereading was massed (i.e., back-to-back, or "cramming").
The test was administered after a 10-minute delay.
• Criterion Task: A cloze test, where 10% of the content words were deleted
and students had to fill in the blanks.1
7.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figure 6)
The results show that rereading is better than not reading, but its benefits are
minimal and show diminishing returns.
• Analysis of Figure 6: Mean percentage of correct responses on a final
cloze test... (Rothkopf, 1968).1
o Data: Performance improved as a function of number of readings: 0
readings (~15%), 1 reading (~30%), 2 readings (~40%), and 4 readings
(~48%).
o Interpretation: This figure clearly shows diminishing returns.
▪ The jump from 0 to 1 reading (the first read) gives a 15-point
benefit.
▪ The jump from 1 to 2 readings (the second read) gives a 10-
point benefit.
▪ The jump from 2 to 4 readings (the third and fourth reads)
gives only an 8-point total benefit (or 4 points per reading).
o This suggests that the "largest benefit... appear[s] to accrue from
the second reading," and further massed rereading is highly
inefficient.1
• Massed vs. Spaced: The study in Figure 6 used massed rereading. The
monograph makes a crucial distinction: spaced rereading (distributing the
readings over time) "consistently outperforms massed rereading on
delayed tests".1
• Rereading vs. Other Techniques: The biggest strike against rereading is its
"relative disadvantage... to other techniques." In "head-to-head
comparisons," rereading is "consistently shown to be an inferior
technique" to elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and especially
practice testing.1
7.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o No Training: It is simple and requires zero training.1
o Economical (Time): It is "relatively economical with respect to
time demands".1
o Better than One Reading: It is more effective than reading a text
only once (Fig. 6).1
o May Boost Main Ideas: The (qualitative) benefit seems to be
greater for "main ideas" than for details.1
• Cons:
o Low Utility & Inferiority: This is the "largest strike against
rereading." It is "much less effective" than other techniques, and
students should be encouraged to replace it.1
o Diminishing Returns: The benefit from the third, fourth, or fifth
rereading is minimal (Fig. 6).1
o Massed Rereading is Ineffective: Cramming (massed rereading)
does not produce durable learning and "fails to find significant
effects" on delayed tests.1
o Comprehension Benefits are "Muddy": The benefits of rereading
for comprehension or application are "less clear" and often "no
effects at all" are reported.1
o Lack of Research: Its generality is "woefully underexplored," as
almost all research has been on college students.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
The primary recommendation is to stop using rereading as a primary study
technique and "use other techniques in its place (e.g., practice testing instead of
rereading)".1
1. If You Must Reread, Space It: Do not reread back-to-back (massed). The
only effective way to reread is to space it out (distributed practice). Read
the text once, then read it again a few days later.
 2. Limit to One Reread: The greatest benefit comes from the second reading.
Additional readings are likely a waste of time.1
3. Replace with Testing: A student's time is always better spent trying to
retrieve the information (practice test) than to passively re-read it.1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Law.
• Ineffective Use (Massed): Reading a difficult court case (e.g., Marbury v.
Madison) four times in one night, hoping it will "sink in."
• Effective Use (Spaced & Replaced):
1. Day 1: Read the case one time.
2. Day 3 (Spaced Reread): Read the case a second time.
3. Day 5 (Replaced with Practice Test): Without looking at the text, try
to (a) state the facts of the case, (b) explain the central legal
question, and (c) summarize the Court's holding and why (self-
explanation).
IV. Analysis of High-Utility Techniques
The final two techniques received the monograph's highest rating: "High
Utility".1 These techniques are robust, effective across a wide range of
conditions, and should form the cornerstone of any student's study regimen.
8. Practice Testing
8.1. The Name of the Technique
Practice Testing.1 This involves "self-testing or taking practice tests over to-be-
learned material." This includes using flashcards, completing end-of-chapter
questions, or simply prompting oneself to recall information from memory
(e.g., free recall).
8.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
Hundreds of studies have demonstrated this effect, known as the "testing
effect." The monograph cites several key paradigms:
 • Paradigm 1: Testing vs. No Test (Runquist, 1983): After initial study of
word pairs, half the pairs were given a cued-recall practice test. The other
half were not. A final cued-recall test was given 1 week later.1
• Paradigm 2: Testing vs. Restudy (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b): After one
study period of a short expository text, participants either (a) studied the
text a second time (Restudy group) or (b) took a practice free-recall test
(Practice Test group). A final free-recall test was given 1 week later.1
• Paradigm 3: Educational Contexts (McDaniel et al., 2012):
Undergraduates in a real online psychology course completed weekly online
practice activities for course points. During these activities, some
information was presented for (a) practice testing with feedback, (b)
restudy, or (c) not practiced at all. The criterion task was the students'
actual, high-stakes course unit exams.1
8.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figures 7, 8, & 9)
The results for practice testing are arguably the most powerful in the entire
monograph.
• Basic Findings: In the Runquist (1983) study, performance after 1 week
was 35% for practice-tested items vs. 4% for non-tested items. In the
Roediger & Karpicke (2006b) study, the practice-test group (56%)
significantly outperformed the restudy group (42%).1
• Analysis of Figure 7: Mean accuracy on a final test... (Spitzer, 1939).1
o Study: A massive, early study with over 3,600 sixth graders. It
compared a group that took a practice test after reading a text to a
group that did not, and broke down results by baseline reading
ability.
o Data: The practice-test group (dark bar) outperformed the no-
practice group (light bar) for both the "Top Third" and "Bottom
Third" of students, at both 1-Day and 1-Week delays.
o Interpretation: This is powerful evidence for the generality of the
testing effect. It is not just a tool for high-achievers; it "benefited
both groups of students".1
• Analysis of Figure 8: Accuracy on final tests that consisted of inference-
based transfer questions... (Butler, 2010).1
 o Study: This study directly addresses the criticism that testing only
improves rote memory. It examined performance on new, inference-
based transfer questions 1 week after practice.
o Data: In all three experiments shown, the "Practice Tests" group
(dark bars) "substantially" outperformed the "Restudy" group (light
bars) on these new questions, including those tapping "Facts,"
"Concepts," and even "far transfer" (applying concepts to a new
domain).1
o Interpretation: This is a critical finding. Practice testing does not
just improve rote memory; it "produces superior transfer" and "can
benefit comprehension." This is theorized to be because the act of
retrieval "trigger[s] elaborative retrieval processes," strengthening
and elaborating the memory trace.1
• Analysis of Figure 9: Grades on course exams... (McDaniel et al., 2012).1
o Study: This study provides the "real-world" proof, using data from
an actual online psychology course.
o Data: On the actual course exams, "Practice Tests" (dark bar) led to
higher grades than "Restudy" (gray bar) or "No Practice" (light
bar). This was true for both "Repeated Questions" (items seen on
the practice test) and "New Questions" (new exam questions about
the same concept).
o Interpretation: This figure demonstrates the technique's high
utility in an "authentic educational context".1 It boosts performance
on the exam even for questions that were not on the practice test.
8.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o High Utility: "Testing effects have been demonstrated across an
impressive range" of formats (flashcards, MC, recall), materials
(facts, text, maps, skills), learner ages (preschool to medical
school), outcome measures, and retention intervals.1
 o Durable Learning: The technique produces "durable knowledge"
and "long-term retention." The effects are "impressive" over delays
of weeks, months, and even years.1
o Improves Transfer: Practice testing enhances comprehension and
the ability to transfer knowledge to new contexts and questions
(Figs 8 & 9).1
o Works in the Classroom: It has been proven effective in
"representative educational contexts" and boosts grades on actual
course exams (Fig 9).1
o Feedback is Potent: Practice testing with feedback is "extremely
robust" and "consistently outperforms practice testing alone".1
• Cons:
o Student Misconception: Many students view testing as an
"undesirable necessity" for assessment, not as a powerful learning
tool.1
o Risk without Feedback: Testing without feedback can (in some
cases) lead to "perseveration errors" if a student practices an
incorrect answer. However, this concern "does not constitute a
serious issue for implementation, particularly when feedback is
provided".1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Use Feedback: This is the most critical implementation issue. Students
must check the correct answer after they test themselves. Feedback
"protects against perseveration errors" and "enhances the positive
effects".1
2. Use Generative Tests: Practice tests that require retrieval (flashcards,
short answer, free recall) are "more effective" than less generative tests
(recognition, fill-in-the-blank).1
3. Space It Out: Combine this technique with distributed practice.
"Repeated practice testing produces greater benefits... when trials are
spaced".1
4. Test Until Correct (More than Once): Do not just test yourself once.
"Final-test performance improves as the number of correct responses
 during practice increases." Continue testing until items are recalled
correctly multiple times across different sessions.1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Any.
• Ineffective Use (Rereading): Reading a textbook chapter, highlighting it,
and then rereading the notes three times.
• Effective Use (Practice Testing):
1. Read: Read the chapter once.
2. Test (Generative): Close the book. On a blank sheet of paper, write
down everything you can remember from the chapter (free recall).
3. Test (Cued): Create flashcards for all key terms and concepts using
the Cornell note-taking system or software.
4. Feedback: Check your free recall against the book. Go through your
flashcards, retrieving the answer before you flip the card. If you get
one wrong, put it back in the deck to be tested again later.
5. Distribute: Test yourself on the full deck of flashcards again the
next day, and again three days later.
9. Distributed Practice
9.1. The Name of the Technique
Distributed Practice (also known as the "spacing effect").1 This refers to
"implementing a schedule of practice that spreads out study activities over
time" rather than "massing" them (cramming).
9.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
This is a scheduling technique, not a specific learning activity. The "learning
episodes" that are distributed can be restudying, practice testing, or skill
practice.
• Classic Study (Bahrick, 1979): Students learned Spanish-English
vocabulary to criterion in one session, followed by six additional relearning
sessions.1
 o Experimental Groups (The "Lag"): The variable was the lag (time)
between these relearning sessions.
1. 0-Day Lag (Massed): All six sessions were back-to-back
("cramming").
2. 1-Day Lag (Spaced): Sessions were spaced 1 day apart.
3. 30-Day Lag (Spaced): Sessions were spaced 30 days apart.
o Criterion Task: A final retention test was given 30 days after the
final (sixth) session.1
• Educational Context Study (Budé et al., 2011): This study took advantage
of a curriculum change to conduct a real-world comparison of two
statistics courses.1
o Groups: (1) A massed course where all material was taught in 8
weeks. (2) A distributed course where the same material was taught
over 6 months.
o Criterion Task: A conceptual test and the final course exam.1
9.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figures 10, 11, & 12)
The results of distributed practice demonstrate a powerful trade-off: what feels
easy (cramming) leads to poor long-term retention, while what feels hard
(spacing) leads to durable learning.
• Analysis of Figure 10: Proportion of items answered correctly... (Bahrick,
1979).1
o Data (During Practice, Sessions 1-6): The 0-Day Lag group (circles)
learned fastest, showing near-perfect performance. They forgot
nothing between sessions. The 30-Day Lag group (triangles)
learned slowest, showing significant forgetting between each session,
and never reached the same level of in-session mastery.
o Data (On the Final Test): The pattern dramatically reversed.
▪ 30-Day Lag (Distributed): ~80% retention.
▪ 1-Day Lag (Distributed): ~55% retention.
▪ 0-Day Lag (Massed): ~30% retention.
 • Interpretation: This is the core finding. Massed practice (cramming) leads
to high performance during study but catastrophic forgetting. Distributed
practice feels harder because it allows forgetting to occur (which is then
corrected), but this process leads to "the greatest long-term retention".1
• Analysis of Figures 11 & 12 (Budé et al., 2011).1
o Study: The real-world statistics course.
o Figure 11 (Conceptual Test): The 6-Month (distributed) group
consistently scored higher on a test of conceptual understanding than
the 8-Week (massed) group.
o Figure 12 (Final Exam): The 6-Month (distributed) group scored
significantly higher on the "Critical Course" (statistics) final exam.
(Both groups scored equally on a "Control Course" exam, proving
they were of equal ability).
• Interpretation: This demonstrates that the distributed practice effect is
not just for simple vocabulary (as in Fig. 10) but also applies to "complex
bodies of structured information" and boosts conceptual understanding in a
real classroom.1
9.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o High Utility: The effect is "robust." It "works across students of
different ages" (from 2-year-olds to older adults), "with a wide
variety of materials" (vocab, math, history, skills), and on "the
majority of standard laboratory measures".1
o Durable Learning: This is the technique for producing "durable
learning" that lasts for "months and even years".1
o Works in Classrooms: It has been "used successfully in a number
of classroom studies" (Figs 11 & 12).1
o Synergistic: It is a scheduling principle that can (and should) be
combined with other techniques (e.g., distributed practice testing is
more effective than massed practice testing).
• Cons:
 o Student Misconception: Students often "believe... that this popular
cramming strategy is effective".1 They mistake the short-term
fluency from massed practice for long-term learning.1
o Implementation Difficulty: Students will often not use this strategy
on their own. They engage in the "procrastination scallop," (i.e.,
cramming).1
o Textbook Design: Many textbooks are "not set up" for distributed
practice; they lump related material together in chapters.1
o Gap in Research: Less research has examined its effect on complex
tasks (though Figs 11 & 12 are very promising).1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Stop Cramming: Students must be trained to abandon massed practice.
2. Use Optimal Lags: The "ideal lag" between practice sessions "is
approximately 10–20% of the desired retention interval".1
o To remember for 1 week: Space sessions 12-24 hours apart.
o To remember for 1 month: Space sessions 3-5 days apart.
o To remember for 1 year: Space sessions 3-6 weeks apart.
3. Implement Cumulatively: Teachers can "force" distributed practice by
giving frequent, cumulative quizzes that cover material from previous
units.1
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Studying for a cumulative final exam that covers 4 units (A, B,
C, D).
• Ineffective Use (Massed/Cramming):
o Week 1: Study Unit A.
o Week 2: Study Unit B.
o Week 3: Study Unit C.
o Week 4: Study Unit D.
 o Finals Week: Frantically re-learn Units A, B, and C (which have
been forgotten).
• Effective Use (Distributed/Spaced):
o Week 1: Study Unit A.
o Week 2: Study Unit B + Review Unit A (e.g., practice test).
o Week 3: Study Unit C + Review Unit B + Review Unit A.
o Week 4: Study Unit D + Review Unit C + Review Unit B.
o Finals Week: A final review of all topics, which are now much more
durable.
V. Analysis of Moderate-Utility Techniques: Part 2
The analysis concludes with the final technique, which also received a
"Moderate" utility rating.
10. Interleaved Practice
10.1. The Name of the Technique
Interleaved Practice.1 This technique involves "a schedule of practice that mixes
different kinds of problems... within a single study session." It is the opposite of
"blocked practice," where a student practices all problems of one type before
moving to the next.
10.2. How Studies on Them Were Performed (Methodology)
In a prototypical study by Rohrer and Taylor (2007), college students learned to
compute the volumes of four different kinds of geometric solids (e.g., spheroid,
wedge, etc.).1
• Blocked-Practice Group: Received a tutorial on Solid 1, then solved all
practice problems for Solid 1. Then tutorial on Solid 2, then all problems
for Solid 2, etc. (AAAA-BBBB-CCCC-DDDD).
• Interleaved-Practice Group: Received tutorials on all four solids first.
Then completed all practice problems in a mixed order (e.g., A-B-C-D-A-
B-C-D...).
The criterion task was a test 1 week later with novel problems of all four types.1
10.3. The Results of the Performances (Including Figures 13 & 14)
The results for interleaving mirror those for distributed practice: the easy-
feeling practice (blocked) is ineffective, while the hard-feeling practice
(interleaved) is highly effective.
• Analysis of Figure 13: Percentage of correct responses on sets of
problems... (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007).1
o Data:
▪ Practice Performance: The Blocked group (dark bar, approx.
89%) performed far better during practice than the
Interleaved group (light bar, approx. 60%). Blocked practice
feels easier and more successful.
▪ Test Performance: The pattern dramatically reversed 1 week
later. The Interleaved group (approx. 63%) "dramatically"
outperformed the Blocked group (approx. 20%). This was a
43-percentage-point benefit.
• Interpretation: Blocked practice is deceptive. When a student solves
Problem A, the solution is still in working memory for the next Problem
A. Interleaved practice forces the student to forget the solution, and on
the next trial, retrieve it from long-term memory.1
• Analysis of Figure 14: Types of errors made by fourth graders... (Taylor
& Rohrer, 2010).1
o Study: This study sought to explain why interleaving works, using
fourth graders learning to solve four different types of math
problems. The researchers analyzed the types of errors made on the
final test.
o Data: The two groups made a similar (low) number of "Fabrication
errors" (making up a formula). However, the Blocked group (dark
bar) made vastly more "Discrimination errors" (approx. 60%) than
the Interleaved group (light bar, approx. 18%).
• Interpretation: This strongly supports the "discriminative-contrast
hypothesis." Interleaving "helps students to discriminate between the
different kinds of problems" and select the correct formula. Blocked
practice removes this cognitive step, as the student knows the next problem
is the same type.1
10.4. A List of Pros and Cons
Based on the monograph's full review 1:
• Pros:
o "Dramatically" Boosts Math Learning: As Figure 13 shows, the
effect on learning and retaining mathematical skills is massive.1
o Teaches Discrimination: It is highly effective at teaching the "key
component" of problem-solving: identifying a problem's type and
selecting the correct strategy (Fig 14).1
o Works for Concept Formation: It has been shown to help students
learn to form complex concepts, such as identifying artists'
painting styles and medical students learning to interpret ECGs.1
• Cons:
o Small Literature Base: The literature is "currently small" and
"contains enough null effects to raise concern." Its "ultimate
effectiveness is currently unknown".1
o Feels Difficult: As Figure 13 shows, interleaving reduces
performance during practice, which "may be problematic" because
students might "feel that they are not learning" and abandon the
strategy.1
o May Not Work for All Materials: Its benefits for learning foreign-
language vocabulary appear mixed or non-existent.1
o May Require Initial Blocking: Students may need some initial
blocked practice to achieve "a certain level of competency" before
they can benefit from interleaving, especially for complex tasks.1
1.5. Effective Ways to Use Them
1. Target Discrimination: Use this technique specifically for types of
learning that require you to distinguish between similar-looking problems
(e.g., math formulas, physics problems, chemistry equation types,
grammar rules).
2. Use "Blocked-then-Interleaved" Schedule: The most practical
implementation is a hybrid approach:
 o Session 1: When a new problem type (Type A) is introduced,
practice it in a blocked fashion (A, A, A, A) to gain basic
competence.
o Session 2: When the next problem (Type B) is introduced, practice
it (B, B, B, B), and then follow up with a practice set that interleaves
the new type with the old type (A, B, A, B).1
3. Embrace the Difficulty: Students must be warned that interleaved
practice will feel harder and will cause more errors during practice, but that
this difficulty is a "desirable" sign that durable learning is occurring.
1.6. A Practical Example of How We Can Use It
• Subject: Mathematics (Unit on calculating properties of 3D shapes).
• Ineffective Use (Blocked): Doing all 10 "Surface Area of a Sphere"
problems. Then doing all 10 "Volume of a Sphere" problems. Then doing
all 10 "Surface Area of a Cone" problems.
• Effective Use (Interleaved): Doing a single practice worksheet where all
three problem types are mixed up.
o Problem 1: Find the volume of a cone.
o Problem 2: Find the surface area of a sphere.
o Problem 3: Find the volume of a sphere.
• Cognitive Process: This forces the student to ask (1) "What shape is
this?" and (2) "What property (volume or surface area) is it asking for?"
before they can even begin to apply the correct formula.
VI. Concluding Synthesis: Building a Toolkit for Durable Learning
This exhaustive review of the Dunlosky et al. (2013) monograph 1 provides a
clear and actionable blueprint for effective learning. The evidence reveals a
stark divide between what is popular (rereading, highlighting) and what is
effective (practice testing, distributed practice).
The low-utility techniques (highlighting, rereading, summarization, keyword
mnemonic, text imagery) share common flaws: their benefits are either non-
existent, highly constrained to specific materials, not durable over time, or
require extensive training that makes them infeasible for the average student.
Their primary danger is that they create an "illusion of competence" that
prevents students from engaging in more productive, albeit more difficult,
strategies.1
The high- and moderate-utility techniques, in contrast, are the "engines" of
durable, transferable knowledge. The most powerful conclusion from this
analysis is that these effective techniques are synergistic and can be combined
into a single, highly effective study regimen:
1. Framework (High Utility): Use Distributed Practice as the master
schedule. Plan to study and review material over time, with increasing lags
between sessions (e.g., Day 1, Day 3, Day 7, Day 20).1
2. Primary Activity (High Utility): The main study activity within each
session should be Practice Testing. Actively retrieve information from
memory using flashcards, blank-page recall, or practice problems. Always
use feedback.1
3. Refinement 1 (Moderate Utility): When practice involves problem-
solving (e.g., math, chemistry), use Interleaved Practice. Mix up different
problem types in practice sets to master the crucial skill of discrimination.1
4. Refinement 2 (Moderate Utility): When a practice question is answered
incorrectly or a complex process is being learned, use Self-Explanation.
Talk through the process, why the right answer is right, and why the
wrong answer was wrong.1
5. Refinement 3 (Moderate Utility): When first learning simple, discrete
facts, use Elaborative Interrogation to link them to prior knowledge by
asking "Why is this true?".1
By replacing passive rereading with this active, challenging, and distributed
cycle of retrieval and explanation, learners can move beyond superficial
familiarity and build the durable, conceptual, and transferable knowledge that
defines true mastery.