Note-taking is a popular strategy. Not all studies are consistent regarding the best way to take notes. However, it is recommended students engage with the material by organising and summarising or paraphrasing the material rather than simply transcribing it. It is also recommended that students not simply just make notes and then forget about them, but improve retention by reviewing the notes [1].

Summarisation is a particular form of note-taking that involves writing out short summaries of the material to be learnt. Effective summaries capture the key point of the material while ignoring extraneous details that the student doesn’t need to remember. The act of summarisation requires students to extract meaning and organise ideas and is thus more effective than simply copying material from the source word for word.

Summarisation can be implemented in a variety of ways, and the evidence isn’t clear as to which exact version is the best. Also, the optimum strategy likely depends on the situation and the nature of the course the student is enrolled in. If the goal is simply to learn material that will be examined, then there are likely more time efficient strategies such as practice quizzing. On the other hand, if a student is working on an essay or research project, creating summaries of important articles can be a useful tool that enhances comprehension and retention [2].

One important finding is that higher quality summaries are linked with better performance on later assessments, so if you do use summarisation as a study strategy, invest time in learning how to write quality summaries. An unresolved debate is whether the source material should be open during summarisation. In other words, should you write summaries open or closed-book? Summarising with the text closed has the advantage of engaging memory which has been shown to enhance retention while preventing verbatim copying. On the other hand important facts may be missed [2].

Summarisation is a better strategy than highlighting and underlining, but students are advised to combine it with other study strategies such as testing.

Marking of texts such as through the use of highlighting or underlining is one of the most popular study strategies. One estimate is that the majority of students use this strategy [1]. When paper textbooks were the only format available, it wasn’t unusual to see books where seemingly the majority of sentences had been highlighted. Inconsiderate students even applied this technique to books they had borrowed from the university library. One study “hack” that was once popular was to buy second hand textbooks that were already highlighted and just study the highlighted passages. The obvious problem is that the previous owner might have been a poor student and have failed to identify the most important information. Despite the popularity of highlighting one research review rated it as being of little use [2].

One study of first year Psychology students found that those who highlighted information as a study strategy did worse on the final exam [3]. Is it possible to boost the effectiveness of highlighting or underlining? An article by Toshiya Miyatsu and associates notes that students often highlight too much material as well as choose poorly regarding what to highlight. They recommend not marking the text during the first reading. Instead, after reading a section, think about the content, then review it and mark the important points. Also consider the structure or overall outline of the material when deciding what to mark [1].

The imagery strategy involves forming clear mental images of the content to be learnt. Unfortunately, a review of past experiments involving mental imagery shows that the benefits are inconsistent, and it is not in general a robust strategy. It may be useful for some materials, but the kind of complex materials that university students need to learn isn’t necessarily easily pictorially represented. Imagery is of limited use in most contexts so students are advised not to use it [2].

Rereading is a common study strategy used by undergraduates. One researcher found that rereading was the most popular study technique with 65% of students using it [4]. Another study found that re-reading was used by 84% of students versus only 11% using self-testing [5].

In one experiment, students studied materials like a psychology textbook chapter. Participants knew both that they would be tested, and the format of the test. They then read the material twice in a row. Rereading the text showed no benefit when they were later tested on the material [6].

Similar to other learning strategies, research studies regarding rereading often only cover a relatively restricted range of scenarios. Also, ambiguous results have been obtained with respect to the impact of the exact timing of rereading relative to the test.

Despite the limited benefits found in various studies, rereading notes may still be useful in some scenarios given the limited investment required in terms of time and effort. If students do use rereading, it pays to adapt the rereading strategy based on the desired retention interval. If the exam is going to occur immediately, then rereading notes may be useful. Alternatively if there is a desire to remember the material for a longer duration, then it is better to space out the rereading sessions, such as four days apart, while incorporating other techniques like self-testing between readings [1]. Trying to reread whole textbook chapters as an exam revision strategy is not a good one. It takes too much time and won’t be effective.

Rereading should always be combined with other study strategies which while requiring more effort are also more effective. For example studies that compare rereading to techniques like self-explanation or practice tests have found that rereading is less effective [2]. Given limited time, active study strategies are likely a better investment.

By rewriting, we are referring to the verbatim writing out of notes again. This is distinct from note-taking from a textbook or lecture, summarising, or other techniques. Rewriting notes is time-consuming and engages few of the mental processes that are needed to learn the material, thus the mechanical copying out of notes is not recommended.

This method involves creating a keyword device to remember materials. Although it has been promoted as a way to learn foreign languages, the evidence points to limited effectiveness. In many cases it is easier to just learn the information than waste time inventing a mnemonic or trying to remember a pre-existing mnemonic [7]. Despite dozens of books extolling the virtues of mnemonics, the technique isn’t practical for students.

Cramming can mean intensive studying over a longer interval, but can also refer to doing all your preparation immediately before a test. Cramming is generally not an effective strategy, as given a fixed amount of time for preparation, it is better to spread it out over a longer period [8]. Moreover, information learned through cramming is quickly forgotten [9].

That doesn’t mean you should never cram. It’s better to cram than to not study at all. Cramming can be a useful, but not optimal, strategy if you need to pass an exam in a couple of days and have left preparation to the last minute.

Given that most students have only limited time for study, it is better to invest that time in efficient study strategies. Some strategies like summarisation are somewhat useful, but others like highlighting, imagery, rewriting, and rereading are less effective. Mnemonics are hyped in some books, but are not really practical. Many students resort to cramming for tests at the last minute. While it is better to cram than not study at all, a more efficient strategy is to space learning over a longer period.

[1] T. Miyatsu, K. Nguyen, and M. A. McDaniel, “Five popular study strategies: Their pitfalls and optimal implementations,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 390–407, 2018.

[2] J. Dunlosky, K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham, “Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology,” Psychological Science in the Public interest, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4–58, 2013.

[3] R. A. R. Gurung, J. Weidert, and A. Jeske, “Focusing on how students study,” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, pp. 28–35, 2010.

[4] L. M. Carrier, “College students’ choices of study strategies,” Perceptual and Motor skills, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 54–56, 2003.

[5] J. D. Karpicke, A. C. Butler, and H. L. Roediger III, “Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own?,” Memory, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 471–479, 2009.

[6] A. A. Callender and M. A. McDaniel, “The limited benefits of rereading educational texts,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 30–41, 2009.

[7] J. Dunlosky and K. A. Rawson, “Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning.,” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 72, 2015.

[8] Y. Weinstein, C. R. Madan, and M. A. Sumeracki, “Teaching the science of learning,” Cognitive research: principles and implications, vol. 3, pp. 1–17, 2018.

[9] E. L. Bjork, R. A. Bjork, and others, “Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning,” Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, vol. 2, no. 59-68, 2011.