CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 230Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesMemory Processes and InfluencesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies.

Morehead, Kayla, Rhodes, Matthew G., DeLozier, Sarah·2016·Memory
DOI 10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Students' self-reported study skills and beliefs are often inconsistent with empirically supported (ES) study strategies. However, little is known regarding instructors' beliefs about study skills and if such beliefs differ from those of students. In the current study, we surveyed college students' and instructors' knowledge of study strategies and had both groups evaluate the efficacy of learning strategies described in six learning scenarios. Results from the survey indicated that students frequently reported engaging in methods of studying that were not optimal for learning. Instructors' responses to the survey indicated that they endorsed a number of effective study skills but also held several beliefs inconsistent with research in learning and memory (e.g., learning styles). Further, results from the learning scenarios measure indicated that instructors were moderately more likely than students to endorse ES learning strategies. Collectively, these data suggest that instructors exhibited better knowledge of effective study skills than students, although the difference was small. We discuss several notable findings and argue for the improvement of both students' and instructors' study skill knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Teachers' knowledge of effective study strategies is lacking.

    “Teachers’ knowledge of effective study strategies is also lacking (Morehead et al., 2016; Blasiman et al., 2017).”

    From How Study Environments Foster Academic Procrastination: Overview and Recommendations (2020) · cites this paper as Morehead et al., 2016

  • Students did not increase their self-testing to levels equivalent to other undergraduate surveys.

    “They did not, however, increase their self-testing (50%) to levels equivalent to other undergraduate surveys, found to be 71% in Hartwig and Dunlosky (2012), 72% in Morehead et al. (2016), and 62% in Williams et al. (2021).”

    From Moving the Needle: Evidence of an Effective Study Strategy Intervention in a Community College Biology Course (2022) · cites this paper as Morehead et al. (2016)

  • Self-testing is used by many students but is less often used by students historically excluded from STEM because of race or ethnicity.

    “Self-testing is a strategy used by many students, with Hartwig and Dunlosky reporting 71% of students (2012), and Morehead et al. reporting 72% of students (2016) saying they self-test, but this strategy is less often used by students historically excluded from STEM because of race or ethnicity (Rodriguez et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2021).”

    From Moving the Needle: Evidence of an Effective Study Strategy Intervention in a Community College Biology Course (2022) · cites this paper as Morehead et al., 2016

  • The amount of spacing at the end of the course (64%) matches the 64% reported in Rodriguez et al. (2018) and is higher than 47% in Hartwig and Dunlosky (2012) and 48% in Morehead et al. (2016).

    “This amount of spacing matches the 64% of students who reported spacing their studying in Rodriguez et al. (2018). It is higher than that reported in Hartwig and Dunlosky at 47% (2012) and in Morehead et al. at 48% (2016).”

    From Moving the Needle: Evidence of an Effective Study Strategy Intervention in a Community College Biology Course (2022) · cites this paper as Morehead et al. (2016)

  • Many students use spacing, with reported rates of 47%, 48%, and 57% in prior surveys.

    “Studies that surveyed students about their study timing found many students do use spacing (47% in Hartwig and Dunlosky, 2012; 48% in Morehead et al., 2016; 57% in Rodriguez et al., 2018), though clearly there is room for improvement.”

    From Moving the Needle: Evidence of an Effective Study Strategy Intervention in a Community College Biology Course (2022) · cites this paper as Morehead et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & DeLozier, S.
Affiliations
  • Kent State University (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rhodes, Matthew G.
ORCID
Venue
Memory
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-01-27
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
257-271
ISSN
  • 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0686
DOI
10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992
OpenAlex
W2021779824
Cited by
230
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5
FWCI
26.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2015-04-02)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE-1321845)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
study habits, study skills, instructor beliefs, student beliefs, learning styles, learning and memory, university students, learning scenarios
MeSH terms
Faculty, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Test Taking Skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review