ProfeQuino / The Best Study Techniques (Ranked by Evidence)
The Best Study Techniques (Ranked by Evidence)
The short answer. According to the most cited review of study methods (Dunlosky et al., 2013), the two best study techniques are practice testing (active recall: answering questions from memory) and distributed practice (spaced repetition: spreading reviews over days and weeks). Both were rated high utility. Three techniques were rated moderate: elaborative interrogation, self-explanation and interleaved practice. Five were rated low, including the three most students rely on: re-reading, highlighting and summarising. The best approach combines the top two: recall from memory, at spaced intervals, with mixed practice and past papers.
This page ranks all ten techniques, explains what each one is good and bad for, and shows how to combine the winners into a routine you can actually follow.
The ranking at a glance
| Rank | Technique | Utility rating | Verdict in one line |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Practice testing (active recall) | High | Use it every session |
| 2 | Distributed practice (spaced repetition) | High | Use it to decide when to review |
| 3 | Interleaved practice | Moderate | Excellent for maths and problem types |
| 4 | Elaborative interrogation | Moderate | Good for "why" questions and concepts |
| 5 | Self-explanation | Moderate | Good for worked problems and processes |
| 6 | Summarisation | Low | Only helps if you're already skilled at it |
| 7 | Highlighting / underlining | Low | Feels productive, adds little |
| 8 | Keyword mnemonic | Low | Narrow use: some vocabulary lists |
| 9 | Imagery for text | Low | Limited, inconsistent benefits |
| 10 | Re-reading | Low | Fine for a first exposure, poor for revision |
Ratings from Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan & Willingham (2013), Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. The order within each band is my teaching judgement, not part of the original review.
What "high" and "low" mean
Dunlosky and colleagues rated each technique on how well the benefit held up across different learners, different materials, different tests and different delays, including real classrooms. "High" means it worked broadly and reliably. "Low" doesn't mean useless; it means small, inconsistent or easily beaten by something else.
A 2021 re-analysis of the same ten techniques across 242 studies (Donoghue & Hattie) found the same two at the top: distributed practice d = 0.85, practice testing d = 0.74, with an overall average of d = 0.56.
The full system that combines them. Knowing the ranking is the easy part; turning it into a daily habit is the hard part. The Study System is my 66-page interactive PDF that does exactly that: eight techniques built on this ranking, a step-by-step protocol for each, a two-week plan, a chapter for parents and eight fillable templates. 29 €, with a 14-day money-back guarantee. See what's inside The Study System →
Why the top two win
1. Practice testing (active recall)
What it is: answering questions from memory before checking: flashcards (answer before flipping), blurting on a blank page, past papers, explaining aloud without notes.
Why it wins: each retrieval strengthens the memory and shows you what you don't know yet. It also rehearses the exact task the exam asks for.
Key evidence:
- Roediger & Karpicke (2006): one week later, students who practised recall remembered 61 % of a passage; students who re-read it remembered 40 %.
- Karpicke & Blunt (2011): free recall beat detailed concept mapping, even on a final test that asked students to draw a concept map.
- Rowland (2014), meta-analysis: testing beat restudying with a medium effect (g ≈ 0.50).
- Agarwal, Nunes & Blunt (2021): positive effects of retrieval practice across real school settings.
→ How to do it properly: Active Recall: What It Is and How to Use It
2. Distributed practice (spaced repetition)
What it is: returning to the same material several times with gaps that grow (around day 1, 3–4, 7–10, 21), instead of one long session.
Why it wins: a bit of forgetting makes the next recall effortful, and that effort makes the memory durable.
Key evidence:
- Cepeda et al. (2006): 839 assessments from 317 experiments; spacing beat massed practice across materials and delays.
- Cepeda et al. (2008): over 1,350 participants, tested up to a year later; the best gap is a fraction of the time until the test.
- Kornell (2009): spacing helped about 90 % of students, yet 72 % believed cramming worked better.
→ Schedules and tools: Spaced Repetition Explained
The moderate three: useful, with conditions
3. Interleaved practice
What it is: mixing different types of problem in one session (chain rule, product rule, quotient rule, all shuffled) instead of doing twenty of the same type in a row. Why it helps: in the exam, nobody tells you which method to use. Interleaving trains you to choose. Evidence: in a randomised trial with 54 seventh-grade maths classes, students who practised interleaved problems scored 61 % on a surprise test a month later, against 38 % for blocked practice (Rohrer et al., 2020). A meta-analysis found the benefit is strongest when the mixed items are similar and easy to confuse (Brunmair & Richter, 2019, g = 0.42). Use it for: maths, physics, similar concepts you confuse, essay question types. Not for: the very first time you learn a method, or unrelated material mixed at random.
4. Elaborative interrogation
What it is: asking "why is this true?" about each fact and answering it. Use it for: conceptual material where facts connect to reasons. Less powerful alone than recall and spacing.
5. Self-explanation
What it is: explaining each step of a worked example or process to yourself as you go. Use it for: maths and science problems, processes, proofs. The popular Feynman Technique (explain it simply, find where you stumble, repair) combines self-explanation with elaboration. Research on learning by teaching suggests the benefit is largest when you explain without notes (Koh, Lee & Lim, 2018), which makes it a form of recall too.
What to stop doing (or at least stop counting as study)
| Technique | Why it feels good | Why it's rated low | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Re-reading | The page is familiar, so it feels learned | Trains recognition, not recall | Read once, then close the book and recall |
| Highlighting | Feels active and organised | Doesn't make you produce anything | Turn each highlight into a question |
| Summarising | Feels thorough | Helps only if you're already good at it, and slow | Summarise from memory, then check |
| Keyword mnemonics | Fun and memorable | Narrow and short-lived for most material | Keep for a few hard vocabulary items |
| Imagery for text | Pleasant | Inconsistent effects | Draw a real diagram from memory (dual coding) |
A myth to bin while we're here: learning styles
You may have been told you're a "visual" or "auditory" learner and should study that way. Matching teaching to a preferred style has been tested, and the evidence doesn't support it (Pashler et al., 2008). What helps everyone is combining words with clear diagrams (dual coding). That's a property of good material, not of you.
How to combine the winners: a simple system
The best study techniques don't compete; they stack. Here's how I teach students to combine them.
- Learn a small chunk (10–15 minutes) from a textbook, lesson or notes.
- Recall it immediately after a short gap, without notes, then check and mark the gaps in a different colour. (practice testing)
- Schedule it for recall again on day 3–4, 7–10 and 21. (distributed practice)
- Explain tricky concepts out loud in plain words, without notes. (self-explanation, elaboration)
- Log every mistake with the correct version and why it happened, then re-test it two or three days later. (practice testing + feedback)
- Mix topics once a week and switch to past papers as the exam approaches. (interleaving + practice testing)
Everything happens inside one focused 75-minute block a day: 5 minutes of reviews and planning, two 30-minute retrieval blocks, and 10 minutes to log mistakes and schedule reviews. The full day-by-day plan is in How to Study for Exams.
Three rules if you remember nothing else
- Pull it out, don't put it in.
- Come back before you've forgotten it all.
- Hunt your mistakes.
Lab vs classroom: an honest note
Lab studies usually find bigger effects than real classrooms, because labs control everything. That's why I put weight on classroom research like Agarwal, Nunes & Blunt (2021) and the Rohrer et al. (2020) maths trial. The techniques still work in schools; the effects are just more modest and they need to be used consistently, for weeks, not once.
None of this is a shortcut. These methods feel harder while you're using them. That's exactly why they work.
FAQ
What is the most effective study technique?
Practice testing (active recall) and distributed practice (spaced repetition) were the only two rated high utility by Dunlosky et al. (2013). Used together, recalling information from memory at spaced intervals, they're the most effective approach for exams.
Is highlighting a good study technique?
Not really. Highlighting was rated low utility because it doesn't require you to produce the information. If you like highlighting, turn each highlight into a question and test yourself on it later.
Is the Feynman Technique evidence-based?
Not under that name, but it combines self-explanation and elaborative interrogation (both rated moderate) and learning by teaching. It works best when you explain from memory, without notes.
Are flashcards a good study method?
Yes, if you answer before flipping and space your reviews over days. That turns them into practice testing plus distributed practice, the two top techniques.
Does interleaving work for every subject?
It works best for maths, physics and other subjects with similar problem types or concepts that are easy to confuse. It helps little with unrelated material or simple word lists.
Should I stop re-reading completely?
Re-reading is fine for a first exposure to new material. For revision, replace it with recall: close the book, write what you remember, then check.
Do learning styles matter?
The evidence doesn't support matching study to a "visual" or "auditory" style (Pashler et al., 2008). Combining words with clear diagrams helps everyone.
About the author
Quino (ProfeQuino) has taught in Spanish secondary schools since 2016, mainly at Colegio Cristo Crucificado in Mula and before that at Colegio Sagrado Corazón in San Javier, working with students aged 12 to 18. He writes about evidence-based study methods and exam preparation at quino.pro. More about Quino →
Related: Active Recall · Spaced Repetition · How to Study for Exams · For Parents · The Study System (PDF)
References: Agarwal, Nunes & Blunt (2021), Educational Psychology Review 33 · Brunmair & Richter (2019), Psychological Bulletin 145(11) · Cepeda et al. (2006), Psychological Bulletin 132(3) · Cepeda et al. (2008), Psychological Science 19(11) · Donoghue & Hattie (2021), Frontiers in Education 6 · Dunlosky et al. (2013), Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1) · Karpicke & Blunt (2011), Science 331 · Koh, Lee & Lim (2018), Applied Cognitive Psychology 32(3) · Kornell (2009), Applied Cognitive Psychology 23(9) · Pashler et al. (2008), Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3) · Roediger & Karpicke (2006), Psychological Science 17(3) · Rohrer et al. (2020), Journal of Educational Psychology 112(1) · Rowland (2014), Psychological Bulletin 140(6).