Dunlosky · Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society 2013 · narrative review · n=?

Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review and expert monograph evaluating 10 learning techniques without a formal systematic review protocol reported in the abstract

PubMed 26173288 · doi:10.1177/1529100612453266 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors reviewed and evaluated 10 learning techniques: elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting or underlining, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. Each technique was evaluated for generalizability across four categories: learning conditions (e.g., studying alone vs. in groups), student characteristics (e.g., age, ability, prior knowledge), materials (e.g., simple concepts to complex science texts), and criterion tasks (e.g., memory, comprehension, problem solving).

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical effect sizes or statistical test values, providing qualitative utility assessments instead. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility ratings, demonstrating robust benefits across ages, abilities, materials, and educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility ratings because evidence of efficacy was limited or had not been adequately evaluated in representative educational contexts. Summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery for text learning, and rereading received low utility ratings due to inconsistent performance boosts, short retention intervals, or limited generalizability.

Why it matters

This review identifies which study strategies are supported by cognitive and educational psychology, showing that popular habits like highlighting and rereading are relatively ineffective compared to active retrieval and spaced practice.

Limits

The abstract provides qualitative utility classifications rather than quantitative effect sizes or counts of included studies. Several techniques lacked adequate testing in authentic classroom environments, and the narrative review methodology does not detail systematic search protocols or formal risk-of-bias grading.

Cited by