Pedagogical Research Lab

evidence-based study techniques · real citations

The "learning styles" myth

The popular idea that teaching to a student's "style" (visual/auditory/kinesthetic) improves learning is not supported by controlled studies (Pashler et al., 2008). Preferences are real; matching them does not boost outcomes. See the Learning Styles Lab for the honest breakdown.

Retrieval practice

High evidence

Pull info out of memory (self-quizzes, blank-page recall) instead of re-reading.

Dunlosky et al. 2013; Roediger & Karpicke 2006

Spaced practice

High evidence

Spread study sessions over time rather than cramming.

Dunlosky et al. 2013; Cepeda et al. 2008

Interleaving

Moderate evidence

Mix related topics/problem types in one session instead of blocking.

Dunlosky et al. 2013; Rohrer & Taylor 2007

Elaboration

Moderate evidence

Explain how things relate in your own words; ask 'why does this work?'

Dunlosky et al. 2013

Concrete examples

Moderate evidence

Anchor abstract ideas in specific, vivid examples.

Dunlosky et al. 2013

Dual coding

Low–Moderate evidence

Combine words with visuals (diagrams, sketches) that match the idea.

Dunlosky et al. 2013; Mayer 2009

Metacognition

Moderate evidence

Monitor what you do/don't know and adjust study accordingly.

Dunlosky et al. 2013; Bjork & Bjork

Practice these here

Spaced Repetition Lab Memory Palace Lab Reading Retention Lab

No Fibs — Honest Limitations

Evidence ratings come from a widely cited review (Dunlosky et al., 2013, "Improving Students' Learning"), which itself rated these techniques from high to low utility. "High" means replicated across studies, not a guarantee for every learner. Always read the primary sources — summaries compress real nuance. This page links you to what to look up, not to the papers directly (find them via Google Scholar / your library).