Researchers tested whether teaching college students about two proven study techniques could improve their exam performance. The techniques were retrieval practice (testing yourself on material) and distributed practice (spreading out your studying over time instead of cramming). One group of students learned about these methods, took 10 pop quizzes throughout the semester, and received encouragement to study this way. The other group studied normally without this intervention. Students who used the new study strategies scored significantly higher on all four exams, with improvements of about 16% overall. This simple, practical approach could help any student perform better in their classes.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether teaching students about smart study techniques (testing yourself and spreading studying over time) would help them score better on exams
  • Who participated: About 47 college students taking a sports nutrition course, split into two groups of roughly equal size
  • Key finding: Students who learned and used the study techniques scored about 16% higher on their exams compared to students who studied normally. The difference was statistically significant, meaning it wasn’t due to chance.
  • What it means for you: If you’re a student, learning to quiz yourself regularly and spread out your studying could meaningfully improve your test scores. This approach is practical and doesn’t require expensive tools or tutors.

The Research Details

This was a straightforward comparison study where researchers divided students into two groups. One group (the “DD Strategy Group”) received a 30-minute lesson about two study techniques: retrieval practice, which means testing yourself on material you’ve learned, and distributed practice, which means spreading your studying across multiple days rather than cramming the night before. The instructor explained why these methods work based on scientific research. Throughout the semester, this group also took 10 short pop quizzes (3-5 questions each, about 10 minutes long) to help them practice retrieving information and encourage them to study regularly. The other group (the “Control Group”) took the same course with the same instructor but didn’t receive the tutorial, pop quizzes, or special encouragement to use these study methods. Both groups took four regular exams during the semester, and researchers compared their scores.

The study design is strong because both groups had the same instructor, same course material, and same exams—the only difference was whether they received the intervention. This makes it easier to tell that any score differences were actually caused by the study technique intervention rather than other factors.

Researchers used statistical tests to compare the exam scores between groups and calculate how much better one group performed than the other.

This research approach is important because it tests whether teaching students about study science actually works in real classrooms. Many students don’t naturally use the most effective study methods, so simply telling them about these techniques and giving them practice opportunities could be a low-cost way to improve education. The study was conducted in a real college course with real exams, making the results more applicable to actual student life than laboratory experiments.

The study has several strengths: it compared two similar groups in the same course with the same instructor, used objective exam scores as the outcome measure, and reported specific statistical results. However, the sample size was relatively small (about 47 students), and the study only looked at one course in one subject area. The results might not apply equally to all types of courses or all students. Additionally, students in the intervention group may have been more motivated simply because they received extra attention, which could have contributed to their better performance beyond just the study techniques themselves.

What the Results Show

Students who received the intervention significantly outperformed the control group on all four exams. On Exam 1, the intervention group scored about 0.8 standard deviations higher. On Exam 2, the difference increased to 1.0 standard deviations. On Exams 3 and 4, the differences were even larger at 1.3 standard deviations each. In practical terms, this means the intervention group’s advantage grew stronger as the semester progressed, suggesting that the benefits of these study techniques accumulate over time.

The overall improvement was approximately 16%, which is a substantial and meaningful difference. To put this in perspective, if a typical student might score 75% on an exam, using these study techniques could boost that to about 87%. This is the kind of improvement that could move a student from a B grade to an A grade or from a C to a B.

The statistical tests showed that these differences were very unlikely to have occurred by chance (P-values were all less than 0.05, meaning there’s less than a 5% probability these results happened randomly). The effect sizes (the d values ranging from 0.8 to 1.3) are considered large in educational research, indicating these are practically important improvements, not just tiny statistical differences.

The study noted that the benefits appeared to increase across the semester. The smallest advantage was on the first exam, while the largest advantages appeared on the third and fourth exams. This suggests that students who use retrieval and distributed practice may need some time to develop these habits, but once they do, the benefits become more pronounced. The pop quizzes themselves may have served a dual purpose: they provided retrieval practice opportunities and also encouraged students to study more consistently throughout the semester rather than waiting until right before exams.

This research aligns with decades of cognitive science research showing that retrieval practice and distributed practice are among the most effective study techniques available. Previous studies in laboratory settings have demonstrated these benefits, but this research is valuable because it shows these techniques work in real educational settings with real college students and real course material. The 16% improvement is consistent with or even exceeds improvements found in previous research on these study techniques.

The study was conducted with only one course (sports nutrition) at one university, so the results might not apply equally to all subjects or all student populations. The sample size of about 47 students is relatively small, which means the results are less certain than they would be with a larger group. The study didn’t track whether students continued using these study techniques after the course ended or whether the benefits lasted long-term. Additionally, students in the intervention group received extra attention from the instructor (the tutorial and pop quizzes), which might have motivated them beyond just the study techniques themselves. The study also didn’t measure whether students actually understood and applied the study techniques correctly or whether they simply benefited from the extra practice opportunities the pop quizzes provided.

The Bottom Line

If you’re a student, consider adopting these two study techniques: (1) Test yourself regularly on course material through practice problems, flashcards, or self-quizzing rather than just re-reading notes, and (2) Spread your studying across multiple days and weeks rather than cramming the night before exams. These changes appear to have strong evidence supporting their effectiveness (high confidence). Ask your instructors if they can incorporate pop quizzes or practice tests into your courses. If not, create your own by making flashcards or practice questions and testing yourself weekly.

These findings are most relevant to college students and high school students preparing for important exams. The study was conducted in a university course, so the benefits are most clearly demonstrated for college-level material. However, the underlying study science suggests these techniques should help students at any level. Students with learning disabilities or those who struggle with traditional studying may find these techniques particularly helpful. Teachers and instructors should care about these findings because they suggest a relatively simple intervention can meaningfully improve student performance.

You might notice some improvement on your first exam after starting these techniques, but the benefits appear to grow stronger over time. Based on this study, by your third or fourth exam using these methods, you could see improvements of 15-20% or more. The key is consistency—these techniques work best when you use them throughout the semester rather than just before exams.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track how many times per week you quiz yourself on course material and how many days in advance of an exam you begin studying. For example, log: ‘Quizzed myself 3 times this week on Chapter 5’ and ‘Started studying for Exam 2 eight days before the test date.’ Monitor whether increasing quiz frequency and starting earlier correlates with better exam scores.
  • Set a weekly reminder to create and take a practice quiz on the material you’ve learned that week. Use the app to schedule study sessions spread across multiple days rather than blocking out one long cramming session. Create a simple checklist: ‘Did I quiz myself this week?’ and ‘Did I study on at least 3 different days this week?’ and track your completion rate.
  • Over a semester or academic year, track your exam scores alongside your study habits. Create a simple graph showing whether weeks when you quizzed yourself more frequently and studied more consistently correlated with higher exam scores. Compare your current grades to your baseline before implementing these techniques. Set a goal to increase the number of self-quizzes per week and the number of days you study per week, then monitor whether your exam scores improve accordingly.

This research demonstrates the effectiveness of specific study techniques in one college course and should not be considered medical or psychological advice. While these study strategies are based on sound cognitive science, individual results may vary depending on the subject matter, student background, and how consistently the techniques are applied. Students with learning disabilities, ADHD, or other conditions affecting learning should consult with their school’s disability services or an educational specialist to determine if these techniques are appropriate for their needs. This study does not replace professional tutoring, academic counseling, or medical treatment for learning disorders. Always consult with your instructor or academic advisor for personalized study recommendations.