Review of Educational

Research http://rer.aera.net

Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on Student Learning: A

Meta-Analysis
John Hattie, John Biggs and Nola Purdie
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 1996 66: 99
DOI: 10.3102/00346543066002099

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/66/2/99

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints

Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions

Citations: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/66/2/99.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1996

What is This?
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014
 Review of Educational Research
Summer 1996, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 99-136

Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on

Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis

John Hattie
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
John Biggs
University of Hong Kong
Nola Purđie
Queensland University of Technology

The aim of this review is to identify features of study skills interventions that
are likely to lead to success. Via a meta-analysis we examine 51 studies in
which interventions aimed to enhance student learning by improving student
use of either one or a combination of learning or study skills. Such interven-
tions typically focused on task-related skills, self-management of learning, or
affective components such as motivation and self-concept. Using the SOLO
model (Biggs & Collis, 1982), we categorized the interventions (a) into four
hierarchical levels of structural complexity and (b) as either near or far in
terms oftransfer. The results support the notion ofsituated cognition, whereby
it is recommended that training other than for simple mnemonic performance
should be in context, use tasks within the same domain as the target content,
and promote a high degree of learner activity and metacognitive awareness.

The present article reviews studies of attempts to improve student learning by

interventions outside the normal teaching context. Generically, these can be called
study skills interventions, although this term has had varied usage to cover a
multitude of disparate programs. For present purposes, a normal teaching context
is one in which teaching is principally focused on the content to be taught and
learned, although secondary aims may be to focus on procedural skills or other
cognitive, metacognitive, and affective attributes of the learner. An innovation or
other departure from normal teaching becomes an intervention in the sense
intended in this review when it (a) is outside what the teacher(s) involved in the
study intended to do in the course of teaching; (b) requires, therefore, an outside
person (e.g., the experimenter) to design and evaluate the intervention; (c) in­
volves a formal experimental design that includes provision for evaluating the
effects of the intervention; and (d) focuses on independent variables that aim to
increase various kinds of performances, usually including academic performance
but going beyond content learning itself.
These interventions have aimed at enhancing motivation, mnemonic skills, self-
regulation, study-related skills such as time management, and even general ability

The research was facilitated by a grant from the Australian Research Grants.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first author.
99

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie

itself; creating positive attitudes toward both content and context; and minimizing
learning pathologies. Some of these variables are both mediating and true depen­
dent variables; for example, study skill enhancement may be an end in itself or a
subgoal whereby enhanced performance is the ultimate criterion by which the
success of the intervention is to be judged and the enhancement of study skills is
the means by which performance itself is enhanced. A general explanation for
these programs is that they are interventions for enhancing learning.
Interventions may broadly be classified as cognitive, metacognitive, and affec­
tive in nature. Cognitive interventions are those that focus on developing or
enhancing particular task-related skills, such as underlining, note taking, and
summarizing. Specific skills taught directively are seen as tactics, which can be
grouped and used purposefully as a strategy (Snowman, 1984). Deny and Murphy
(1986) described these strategies as "the collection of mental tactics employed by
an individual in a particular learning situation to facilitate acquisition of knowl­
edge or skill" (p. 2). Metacognitive interventions are those that focus on the self-
management of learning, that is, on planning, implementing, and monitoring one's
learning efforts, and on the conditional knowledge of when, where, why, and how
to use particular tactics and strategies in their appropriate contexts. Affective
interventions are those that focus on such noncognitive aspects of learning as
motivation and self-concept. Attributions for success and failure were regarded
here as affective.
Intervention programs may comprise any one or more of these kinds of targets.
In fact, whereas in earlier interventions the thrust was in teaching cognitive skills
and strategies directly, in recent years the emphasis has shifted to embedding the
application of such skills in specific contexts, as is explained in the review below.
The aim of this review is to identify features of study skills interventions that are
likely to lead to success. Via a meta-analysis, we survey the more recent interven­
tion studies so as to assess the relative effect sizes of different kinds and conditions
of intervention and, more generally, to see the extent to which the various
theoretical stances may be supported.
Literature Review
There has been an enormous amount of research on study skills. In the ERIC
database we located 1,415 separate journal articles, published between 1982 and
1992, reporting research on various aspects of study skills (although only a
fraction of that number appear in the present study, for reasons expressed below).
There have been reviews of some of this literature (e.g., Hartley, 1986; Pintrich &
de Groot, 1990; Tabberer, 1984) and six meta-analyses of particular kinds of
interventions. We could find no meta-analyses, however, which attempted to
identify the features of a study skills intervention that are likely to lead to its
success.
The Nature of the Intervention
The direct teaching of detached study skills has a long history; yet, as relatively
late as 1968, Haslam and Brown reported that "published research on the produc­
tivity of study skills instruction for high school students appears to be almost
nonexistent" (p. 223). In any event, this early work did not consider theory-driven
questions like the following: Why should some interventions appear to work while
100

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions
others appear not to? Under what conditions do interventions work best, if they
work at all? In more recent years, the discussion has turned to study skills in
relation to such factors as learning strategy training, motivation, self-efficacy,
self-regulation, transfer, and the context of intervention (A. L. Brown, Bransford,
Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Derry & Murphy, 1986; Garner, 1990; McCombs,
1984; Perkins & Salomon, 1989).
Generally, there seems to be a current consensus that direct teaching of general,
all-purpose study skills is not effective (e.g. Garner, 1990; McCombs, 1984;
Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Tabberer, 1984), although Hartley (1986) claimed that
at least with tertiary students there were small but consistently positive gains.
Kulik, Kulik, and Shwalb (1983) in a meta-analysis of low-ability college students
obtained a small average effect size of 0.29. When researchers concentrate on a
single aspect of studying, results seem to improve. Henk and Stahl (1985) meta-
analyzed 14 studies of note taking and found a slightly larger average effect size
of 0.34. In a study of reading and study skills, Sanders (1980) reported a much
more impressive effect size of 0.94. This focus on more specific aspects of study
skills foreshadows the current position, which states that if strategy training is
carried out in a metacognitive, self-regulative context, in connection with specific
content rather than generalized skills, and if such training is supported by the
teaching context itself, positive results are much more likely (A. L. Brown et al.,
1983; Derry & Murphy, 1986; Garner, 1990; McCombs, 1984). Even then,
training and test tasks need to be closely related; the further the test task from the
training task, the more difficult it becomes to find transfer effects (Perkins &
Salomon, 1989).
Kirschenbaum and Perri (1982), reviewing studies conducted with adult partici­
pants and published in the period 1974-1978, found 35 studies in which the
interventions comprised programs based on applied behavioral analysis, general
counseling, self-control techniques, and study skills, either as single-component
programs or in multiple-component programs involving certain combinations of
these approaches, such as self-control and study skills training. Dependent vari­
ables were some aspect of performance, either grade point average or individual
subject grades, and sometimes anxiety and/or attitude. Kirschenbaum and Perri
found that the proportion of successful to unsuccessful interventions was higher
on the affective dependent measures (over 50% were effective) than on perfor­
mance (33% were effective). As far as performance was concerned, single-
component interventions were rather less successful than multiple-component
interventions; interventions incorporating study skills, with either behavioral or
self-control elements, were most effective. Behavioral interventions on their own
were most effective in reducing anxiety. There was some disagreement over the
optimum length of a program, but some effective ones were as short as 3 or 8
hours in duration.
The effectiveness of multiple-component over single-component interventions,
Kirschenbaum and Perri (1982) argued, was caused by "credibility," or the
subjects' expectancy for change, which could be another way of describing a
Hawthorn effect. The overall pattern, however, is conceptualized in terms of a
three-component model. Motivation is enhanced by perceived control and effi­
cacy expectations, which in turn provide the impetus for study skills development,
while both are supported by self-regulatory skills development.
101

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
The underlying metacognitive component of self-regulation in some form or
another is evident in other reviews (behavioral approaches appear not to be
represented in the more recent literature). McCombs (1984), in her review,
focused on relationships between metacognitive components, perceptions of per­
sonal control that contributed to continuing motivation, and skills training inter­
ventions. She defined skills training in a very broad sense, however, as anything
that may generate processes conducive to learning and that may become subject
to intervention. Intervention steps include cognitive and metacognitive strategy
training, and within the affective system she includes targets related to eliminating
negative and creating positive self-views and making students aware of inappro­
priate self-cognitions. McCombs's "motivational skills training" program is de­
signed to focus on affective and process variables as outcomes rather than on
performance per se; consequently, it is difficult to judge how effective the pro­
gram is in enhancing learning in the conventional, institutional sense.
Derry and Murphy (1986) explicitly take Bloom's (1984) "2 sigma" criterion;
that is, to design whole-class interventions that would meet the level of achieve­
ment—two standard deviations above the norm—possible under the ideal instruc­
tional condition of one-to-one tutoring. They again use a strong top-down ap­
proach, developing a model of intervention from the theories of Gagne (1980),
Sternberg (1983), and metacognitive theorists such as Flavell (1979) and A. L.
Brown (1978) together with a review of intervention studies. They develop a
taxonomy of intervention targets ranging from microcomponents or tactics, which
are easily trainable, to executive components, which appear to develop only with
much in situ practice in contexts and curricula that evoke and support them. The
last position finds elaborated support from Perkins and Salomon (1989), who
referred to the "low" and "high" roads to transfer—the former based precisely on
specificity and long practice, and the latter on the deliberate and mindful abstrac­
tion of principles, and the search for analogies, that might link specific situations
with each other.
Haller, Child, and Walberg (1988) meta-analyzed 20 studies of metacognitive
intervention in reading skills and found an average effect size of 0.71, which is
impressive. Nevertheless, the success of such interventions is not universal, which
prompted Garner (1990) to ask why people do not use learning strategies they
have been taught to use. She concluded that training tends to remain situated; only
exceptionally will students use strategies in contexts other than those in which
they are taught. Pintrich and de Groot (1990) emphasized the motivational roots
of transfer; students need the "will" as well as the "skill" in learning if they are to
continue to use the strategies they have been taught.
Thinking today has come a long way from the simple instruction in "study
skills," and there is something of a theoretical consensus about the nature of
interventions that might enhance learning. First, the target of intervention is not
simply a tactic or microcomponent such as a particular study skill or set of study
skills, as would have been the case 30 or 40 years ago, but rather a range of
cognitive and metacognitive procedures. The catch is that the more general and
more abstract these procedures, the harder it is to achieve measurable results of
intervention (Derry & Murphy, 1986; Perkins & Salomon, 1989). Second, the
matter is not only cognitive but also affective, involving motivation both as a
precursor to effective strategy use (Biggs, 1987; Kirschenbaum & Perri, 1982;
102

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

Pintrich & de Groot, 1990) and as a continuing support to the complex of learning-
related beliefs and procedures (McCombs, 1984). Third, the teaching context
should evoke, support, and maintain the components being targeted by interven­
tion (Biggs, 1993; Derry & Murphy, 1986; Garner, 1990).
Collectively, then, there are several suggested conditions for successful strategy
training: (a) high and appropriate motivation, including self-efficacy and appro­
priate attributions (such as attributing failures to a lack of effort, and setting
realistic and attainable goals); (b) the strategic and contextual knowledge for
doing the task; and (c) a teaching-learning context that supports and reinforces the
strategies being taught.
At the present time, however, attempts at modeling intervention programs for
enhanced learning lack broadly based supportive data. Not to put too fine a point
on it, theory may have leapt ahead of the evidence. But even within the consensus
referred to here, the relative effectiveness of a variety of programs and thrusts
needs evaluating for both theoretical and practical reasons.
Classifying the Interventions
A typical way of classifying interventions is on the basis of their supporting
theories, but too often such theories are either ambiguous or not mutually exclu­
sive. For example, as already noted, there are many variations on the metacognitive
theme, and most theories of intervention now refer to a metacognitive basis. These
variations involve self-regulation in some form or another, although some inter­
ventions in the recent literature are eclectic or atheoretical.
An examination of the thrust or purpose of an intervention is a fruitful way to
identify what parameters that particular intervention aims to change: performance,
attributions, self-concept, motivation, attitudes, study skills, and so on. These are
examined in the present study. Of course, like supporting theories, they are not
mutually exclusive, as many interventions are aimed at changing several depen­
dent variables simultaneously.
It would be desirable to classify interventions in mutually exclusive terms that
relate to the nature of each such intervention. In other words, we would like to
classify interventions in terms of their independent variables rather than in terms
of their effects on dependent variables. Such a classification might refer to the
structural complexity of interventions and whether they are intended to achieve
near or far transfer. The so-called SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982),
described in the following section, has been used to order the structure of re­
sponses. Because this taxonomy is based on structural complexity, it may readily
be adapted to suit the present case.
The SOLO Taxonomy: A Hierarchical Model of Learning Outcomes
Biggs and Collis (1982) started from a study of learning outcomes in (mainly)
high school content domains and found that students learn quite diverse material
in stages of ascending structural complexity that display a similar sequence across
tasks. This led to the formulation of the SOLO taxonomy, where "SOLO" is an
acronym for "structure of the observed learning outcome." This taxonomy makes
it possible, in the course of a student's learning a subject, to identify in broad terms
the stage at which the student is currently operating.
The following stages occur.
103

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie

• The student engages in preliminary preparation, but the task itself is not
attacked in an appropriate way (prestructuraΐ).
• One {unistructural) and then several {multistructural) aspects of the task are
picked up serially, but are not interrelated.
• Several aspects are integrated into a coherent whole {relational).
• That coherent whole is generalized to a higher level of abstraction {extended
abstract).
The SOLO model is readily generalizable, and we use it here to provide a
convenient and exclusive system for classifying interventions intended to enhance
learning, as is explained and illustrated below.
The present classification begins with the unistructural and not the prestructural
stage, as the latter by definition refers to an intervention already expected to be
unsatisfactory. An example might be an intervention based on an unacceptable
and undeveloped theory base, such as learning in the presence of "good luck"
tokens (which may be an interesting question but is not one in which we are
interested here).
(1) Unistructural. A unistructural intervention is based on one relevant feature
or dimension. An example might be an intervention focused on a single point of
change, such as coaching on one algorithm, training in underlining, using a
mnemonic, or anxiety reduction. The target parameter may be an individual
characteristic or a skill or technique. The essential feature is that it alone is the
focus, independently of the context or its adaptation to or modification by content.
A typical example of a unistructural intervention is that reported by Scruggs
and Mastropieri (1986a), in which a trained experimenter taught students to use a
mnemonic strategy for learning information that is not immediately meaningful
and which has an abstract, numerical component. In this instance, the material to
be learned was the hardness index, from 1 to 10, for each of eight minerals. The
content to be learned, however, could just as easily have been drawn from any
subject area. There were three experimental conditions involving use of mediating
keywords based on imagining pictures linking the numbers indicating hardness
(e.g., "one is a bun") with codings of the minerals (e.g., "actor" for the mineral
actinolite) in high-, medium-, and low-structure conditions (ranging from supplied
to self-generated keywords and pictures), and a control condition. Here the
experimental conditions were procedurally simple and direct, involving essen­
tially one technique (mnemonic) aimed at accurate recall.
(2) Multistructural. A multistructural intervention involves a range of indepen­
dent strategies or procedures, but without any integration or orchestration as to
individual differences or demands of content or context. Examples include typical
study skills packages taught directively, without a metacognitive or conditional
framework. An example is provided by Haslam and Brown (1968), who taught the
Brown-Holzman Effective Study Skills Course: High School Level to high school
sophomores in twenty 55-minute class periods. The course involved better time
utilization, reading and writing techniques, techniques for preparing for and
taking examinations, realistic goal setting, student-to-student tips, and the like. In
short, it was a typical study skills course. A basic assumption is that all the "study
habits" are detachable, teachable, and usable across the board in many school
subjects, resulting in greater increases in grade point average than would be found
in a control group. Instrumentation included manuals and workbooks developed
104

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

by Brown and Holzman over several years prior to the study in question. It is
considered multistructural because it comprises a range of skills taught directively.
(3) Relational. All the components in a relational intervention are integrated to
suit the individual's self-assessment, are orchestrated to the demands of the
particular task and context, and are self-regulated with discretion. Metacognitive
interventions, emphasizing self-monitoring and self-regulation, would fit into this
category, as would many attribution retraining studies. For example, in Relich,
Debus, and Walker's (1986) study, a group of sixth graders identified as "learned
helpless" and deficient in arithmetic skills were given attribution retraining fol­
lowed by manipulated success rates in division exercises, so that the beliefs about
success and failure set up by the retraining were directly reinforced by the
manipulated performances.
(4) Extended abstract. In an extended abstract intervention, the integration
achieved in the previous category is generalized to a new domain. Interventions
with this thrust would be those aiming for far transfer. In theory, Feuerstein's
(1969) Instrumental Enrichment program is an example and was the only one we
could find in this category.
Instrumental Enrichment was initially developed to cater to the learning needs
of culturally and economically deprived adolescents who were failing at school.
Its emphasis is on active student participation, with much independent work and
discussion, concentrating on basic cognitive processes, problem solving tactics,
and motivational factors. Curriculum content is deliberately excluded; instead,
there is an emphasis on teaching thinking about thinking, learning about learning,
and cognitive and metacognitive processes. There is a battery of curriculum
material with titles such as "organization of dots," "analytic perception," "orien­
tation in space," "family relations," "comparisons," "classification," "numerical
progressions," "stencil design," "temporal relations," "transitive relations," and
"syllogisms." These exercises are aimed at nurturing learning sets and systematic
data-gathering behavior, developing skills in comparative analysis to improve
relational insights, and removing attitudinal inhibitions that often operate in low-
achieving adolescents. It is claimed that none of the Instrumental Enrichment
tasks are designed to "teach to the test."
The Feuerstein packages are classified as extended abstract on the grounds that
the intervention aims to produce structural changes in an individual's cognitive
functioning to the point where autonomous or independent learning can occur.
The Instrumental Enrichment exercises are designed to develop specific cognitive
and metacognitive skills necessary not only for success in tests of general ability
but also in everyday classroom tasks that require the student to apply abstract
principles such as those relating to perception, reasoning, planning, communica­
tion, efficiency, elaboration, organization, and relationships.
The interaction of transfer and the SOLO taxonomy. A program may aim to
enhance performances that are either closely related or distantly related to the
training tasks. The former kind of transfer is called near, and the latter kind of
transfer is called/ør. Whether a program aims at near or far transfer is independent
of its structure in SOLO terms, although the question of near and far transfer
interacts with this taxonomic system, Unistructural models may, in theory, aim at
near or far transfer, but direct training in a single skill is generally in the context
of near transfer. Multistructural and relational models can readily be applied to
105

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie

situations testing near and far transfer. Multistructural models are frequently
constructed on the assumption that providing students with a wide range of study
procedures would enable them to operate effectively in a wide range of situations,
in the typical study skills training format. Relational models are most frequently
focused on the context in which they are used, but if the individual acquires
strategies and the conditional knowledge of when and where they might work,
some degree of far transfer might be expected. Extended abstract models, in being
involved with learning how to learn, for example, are essentially concerned with
far transfer.

Method
Sample of Studies
We first searched various computer-based information sources using the key­
words study skills, learning strategies, learning processes, cognitive style, study
habits, cognitive strategies, cognitive processes, learning style, metacognitive
skills, and thinking skills. These keywords were searched for in Psychological
Abstracts (1983 to 1992) and the database of the Educational Resources Informa­
tion Center (ERIC) (1983 to 1992). After locating various articles, we searched the
references cited in them for further studies. Criteria for including a study in the
sample were that (a) it was concerned with learning or study s k i l l s . ( b ) it was
possible to calculate an effect s i z e . ( c ) there was some type of intervention, and (d)
the outcome was either performance, study skills, or affect. This yielded the
present sample of 51 studies (denoted by asterisks in the reference list). There
were some studies with more than one sample, and most had multiple indicators
of the variables of interest. As a consequence, there were 270 effect sizes that
could be coded. Table 1 presents the summary of information from each study.
Variables Coded From Each Study
The following general information was coded from each study: publication
year, publication form (journal article, book chapter, or thesis), and sample size.
A number of characteristics of each program were also coded. The thrust of the
intervention referred to the major intention of the program. There were six levels
of thrust: attribution, to change the attributions students made for success and/or
failure; motivation, to change the student's motivation for learning; study skills, to
diminish use of ineffective study behaviors and train students to use one or a
package of targeted skills; structural aids, which help the learner interact with
content to define structural and high-level meaning (these include concept map­
ping, certain kinds of note taking and summarizing, and organizers); Feuerstein
programs, comprising more general ways in which the student can adopt task-
appropriate strategies, such as using analogy and relating ideas, elaborative pro­
cessing, and a "meaning orientation"; and memory, where interventions were
aimed at improving accuracy of recall for quite specific factual material.
The nature of each intervention was also classified according to the type of
outcome for which it aimed, as either reproductive or transformational A training
program that aimed to develop study skills that are used mainly for the reproduc­
tion of content (e.g., memory programs) was classified as reproductive. A pro­
gram that aimed to help students deal with content at a high cognitive level—that
106

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 1
Summary of studies included in the meta-analysis
Type of SOLO No.
Author Pub Age Ability Directed Thrust Focus Outcome outcome classification Near/far N effects Hedges

Amato, Bernard, 1989 University High Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Far 131 2 -0.57
DΆmico, & aids
DeBellefeuille

Andre & 1979 Upper sec Medium Self Structural Content Performance Reproductive Multistructural Near 71 1 0.61
Anderson aids

Armbruster, 1987 Primary Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Transfor­ Relational Far 82 1 1.75
Anderson, aids mational
& Ostertag
Atkinson & 1975 University High Self Memori­ Other Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 52 1 1.11
Raugh zation

Barnes, Ginther, 1989 Lower sec Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Near 83 2 0.07
&Cochran aids

Bean, Singer, 1986 Upper sec High Teacher Structural Content Attitude/ Reproductive Multistructural Far 72 4 0.60
Sorter, & Frazee aids performance

Billingsley & 1988 Upper sec Und-ach Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Near 54 4 0.85
Wildman aids

Bretzing, 1987 Lower sec Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Multistructural Near 42 1 1.68
Kulhavy, & aids
Caterino

Brown & 1976 Primary Low Teacher Memori­ Other Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 66 1 0.33
Barclay zation

Brown, 1979 Primary Low Teacher Memori­ Other Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 58 2 0.35
Campione, & zation
Barclay

Casey 1990 Primary Mixed Self Study skills Individual Performance Transfor­ Relational Far 68 2 0.79
mational

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 1 (continued)
Type of SOLO No.
Author Pub Age Ability Directed Thrust Focus Outcome outcome classification Near/far N effects Hedges

Danner & Taylor 1973 Primary Medium Teacher Memori­ Other Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 120 2 0.90
zation
Dansereau et al. 1979 University High Teacher Study skills Individual Attitude/ Reproductive Relational Far 87 8 0.62
study skills/
performance
Dendato & 1986 University High Teacher Study skills Individual Attitude/ Transfor­ Relational/ Near/far 43 4 0.96
Diener performance mational multistructural
Dwyer 1986 University High Teacher Structural Content Near 136 6 0.38
aids Performance Reproductive Unistructural

Englert, Raphael, 1991 Primary Mixed Teacher Structural Content Near 174 1 0.88
Anderson, aids Study skills Transformational Relational
Anthony, &
Stevens
Feuerstein, Miller, 1981 Adult Low Teacher Feuerstein Other Performance Transformational Ext abstract Far 184 1 0.79
Hoffman, Rand,
Mintzker, & Jensen

Feuerstein, Rand, 1979 Lower sec Low Teacher Feuerstein Other Performance Transformational Ext abstract Far 114 3 0.51
Hoffman, Hoffman,
& Miller

Gadzella, 1977 University High Teacher Study skills Individual All Other Relational Far 160 3 0.13
Goldston,
& Zimmerman

Greiner & Karoly 1976 University High Teacher Study skills Content Performance/ Transformational Multistructural Far 96 12 0.33
study
Haslam & Brown 1968 Upper sec Mixed Teacher Study skills Individual All Other Multistructural Far 118 4 1.26

Ĵudd et al. 1979 Adult High Self Study skills Individual Attitude/ Other Multistructural Near 160 12 0.23
performance

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 1 (continued)

Type of SOLO No.

Author Pub Age Ability Directed Thrust Focus Outcome outcome classification Near/far N effects Hedges

Kiewra & Benton 1987 University High Self Structural Content Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 43 0.36
aids

Klein & Freitag 1992 University Medium Self Motivation Individual Study skills Transformational Multistructural Near 64 2 0.97

Kratzing 1992 University High Study skills Individual Study skills Other Multistructural Near 140 23 -0.01
Lange], Guttentag, 1990 Primary Mixed Teacher Memori­ Other Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 48 0.95
&Nida zation

Lodico, Ghatala, 1983 Primary Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Near 72 2 0.47
Levin, Pressley, aids
ÄBell

Martin 1984 Upper sec Mixed Teacher Feuerstein Other Performance Transformational Ext abstract Far 28 2 1.09
McBride & Dwyer 1985 University High Self Structural Content Performance Reproductive Multistructural Near 112 0.25
aids

McKeachie, 1985 University High Teacher Study skills Individual Performance Transformational Relational Far 419 4 0.29
Pintrich, & Lin
Morgan 1985 University High Teacher Study skills Individual Performance Other Unistructural Near 226 2 0.17
Narrol, Silverman, 1982 Upper sec Low Teacher Feuerstein Other All Transformational Ext abstract Far 102 25 0.45
& Waksman
Nist & Simpson 1989 University Medium Self Study skills Individual Performance Transformational Relational Far 73 1 0.23
Nist, Mealey, 1990 University Under ach Teacher Study skills Individual All Other Relational Far 239 21 0.35
Simpson, & Kroc
Okebukola 1988 University High Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Near 145 1 0.07
& Jegede aids

Purdie 1989 Upper sec Mixed Teacher Motivation Individual Study skills Other Relational Far 132 18 0.02
Rand, Mintzker, 1981 Adult Low Teacher Feuerstein Other All Transformational Ext abstract Far 203 1 -0.48
Miller, Hoffman,
& Friedlender

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 1 (continued)

Type of SOLO No.

Author Pub Age Ability Directed Thrust Focus Outcome outcome classification ř>íear/far N tíffects Hedges

Rand, 1979 Lower sec Low Teacher Feuerstein Other All Transformational Ext abstract Far 114 25 0.18
Tannenbaum,
& Feuerstein
Relich, Debus, 1986 Primary Mixed Self Attribution Individual All Other Relational Near 14 8 1.42
& Walker
Schunk & Cox 1986 Lower sec Medium Teacher Structural Content Attitude/ Reproductive Unistructural Near 90 2 0.57
aids performance
Schunk & Gunn 1986 Primary Mixed Teacher Structural Content Reproductive Multistructural Near 50 2 2.14
aids Performance

Scruggs & 1986 Primary Medium/ Teacher Memori­ Other Reproductive Unistructural Near 96 6 1.64
Mastropieri high zation Memory

Scruggs & 1986 Primary Teacher Study skills Individual Reproductive Multistructural Far 76 2 0.22
Mastropieri Low Performance

Scruggs, 1985 Primary Teacher Memori­ Other Reproductive Unistructural Near 36 4 0.76
Mastropieri, Levin, Under ach zation Performance
McLoone, Gaffney,
& Prater
Shayer & Beasley 1987 Lower sec Low Teacher Feuerstein Other Performance Transformational Ext abstract Far 12 7 1.03
Simbo 1988 Upper sec Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Unistructural Near 180 1.11
aids 1

Swing & Peterson 1988 Primary Mixed Teacher Structural Content Performance Reproductive Relational Near 121 0.12
aids 8

VanOverwalle 1990 University High Teacher Study skills/ Individual Performance Transformational/ Multistructural Near/far 240 0.02
& De Metsenaere attribution reproductive 10

Weinstein et al. 1979 University High Teacher Memori­ Other Performance Unistructural Near 100 1.88
zation Reproductive

Weisberg 1990 Lower sec Under ach Teacher Structural Content Performance Relational Near 50 10 0.90
& Balajthy aids Reproductive

Wilson 1986 Lower sec Medium Teacher Study skills Individual Performance Multistructural Far 47 2 0.47
Transformational
Note. Pub = year of publication; N = sample size.

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

is, to take the content and in some way transform it for a variety of purposes and
in different contexts—was classified as transformational.
The nature of the intervention was categorized according to the SOLO tax­
onomy described above. Interventions were classified as unistructural,
multistructural, relational, or extended abstract and as near ox far in terms of the
degree of transfer between training task and outcome measure.
The outcome measure used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention was
also classified. Academic performance measures such as subject-based tests and
examinations, grade point averages, and tests of general ability were categorized
as performance. Where the outcome measured change in either one or a range of
study behaviors, the category study skills was assigned. Affect was used when the
outcome measure was related to self-efficacy, self-concept, or attitude.
The tests used were coded, and their quality was approximated by coding those
that were published and normed as high, those for which there was some evidence
of psychometric investigation of the instrument as medium, and those created for
the study with no attempts at psychometric rigor as low.
A number of characteristics of the research design were coded. The studies
were graded according to quality (coded independently and agreed to by all three
authors and classified as low, medium, and high; those that were of patently low
quality were not included in the analysis), subject selection (voluntary, intact class
groups), theoretical orientation of study (theory based, atheoretical), purpose of
study (specifically related to study or learning skills, or study skills was second­
ary), design of study (control-experimental, pretest-posttest), and direction of
program (self-directed or teacher-directed).
Characteristics of the participants in each study were coded according to several
categories—for example, age (primary-elementary, junior secondary, secondary,
college-university, adults), ability level (low, medium, high, mixed, underachiev­
ing), and socioeconomic status (low, middle, upper, mixed).
Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes
The effect size calculated is g, the difference between the means of the interven­
tion group and the control group, or the difference between the pretest and posttest
group means, divided by the pooled standard deviation. The sign of the difference
was positive when a treatment had a positive effect (thus, those that reduced
learning pathologies such as anxiety, surface approaches, and negative attitudes
were coded as positive effects). The gs were converted to ds by correcting them
for bias (as the gs overestimate the population effect size, particularly in small
samples; see Hedges & Olkin, 1985). To determine whether each set of ds shared
a common effect size (i.e., was consistent across the studies), we calculated a
homogeneity statistic Qw, which has an approximate chi-square distribution with
k - 1 degrees of freedom, where k is the number of effect sizes (Hedges & Olkin,
1985). Given the large number of effect sizes that are combined into the various
categories, and the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic to this number, it is not
surprising that nearly all homogeneity statistics are significant. As the most
critical comparisons are presented in interaction tables between at least two
variables, we are more confident that these means are sufficiently homogeneous
to use the means as reasonable estimates of the typical value.
We then used categorical models to determine the relation between the study
111

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
characteristics and the magnitude of the effect sizes, using the procedures outlined
by Hedges and Olkin (1985). These models provide a between-classes effect
(analogous to a main effect in an ANOVA design) and a test of homogeneity of
the effect sizes within each class. The between-classes effect is estimated by QB,
which has an approximate chi-square distribution with p - 1 degrees of freedom,
where p is the number of classes. The statistical significance of this between-
classes effect can be used to determine whether the average effect size differs over
classes. The tables reporting tests of categorical models also include the mean
weighted effect size for each class, calculated with each effect size weighted by
the reciprocal of its variance, and the 95% confidence interval of this mean. If this
confidence interval does not include zero, then the mean weighted effect size can
be considered significantly different from zero.

Results and Discussion

Characteristics of the Studies
Before considering the findings reported in research on the effectiveness of
study skills programs, we examined the characteristics of the studies from which
conclusions about this research will be drawn.
The first characteristic was the quality of the studies, as we wished to exclude
studies of low quality. Quality was assessed on the basis of consensus between the
independent ratings agreed to by the three authors. The prime concerns were that
the study be based on reasonable sample sizes, have a control (e.g., pretest and
posttest, or control and experimental groups), and use reliable tests. The eight low-
quality studies (with 14 effect sizes) had a greater mean effect size than the
remaining studies. Given typical advice in conducting these analyses, they could
not be meaningfully included in the final sample and thus were dropped from all
further analyses.
Table 2 shows many of the characteristics of the various effect sizes. As shown
by the central tendencies of these characteristics, studies generally were based on
reasonably large sample sizes using school age students and were published
relatively recently in journals (median = 1986). The programs were implemented
by teachers for classes of students, although, as will be shown later, the majority
of study skills packages (a) were implemented in universities wherein students
self-selected to participate. ( b ) were conducted for atypical students (the low,
high, and underachievers). ( c ) used a variety of study skills assessments, and (d)
included 96 students (range 7 to 226). There were 30 effect sizes that included
follow-up evaluations, typically of 108 days, and the effect sizes declined to an
average of 0.10.
Overall Summary of the Relative Evaluation of Study Skills Programs
In presenting the findings of our meta-analysis, we first consider the overall
effect sizes in the study skills programs and then report a number of models
showing that several characteristics of the studies moderated the overall results.
The mean weighted effect size was 0.45, with a standard error of 0.03, and the
overall homogeneity statistic was 3,246.99 (df 269, p < .001), which indicates
that the overall mean may not be the most typical value, as there are many
moderator variables that mediate this mean. When the study was the unit of
112

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions
TABLE 2
Summary of effect size characteristics
Variable and class N Variable and class N
Publication form Socioeconomic status
Journal article 189 Low 32
Book chapter 22 Medium 21
Unpublished document & thesis 41 High 18
Purpose of the study Mixed 199
Specifically study skills 133 Ethnicity
Study skills are secondary 136 Anglo 55
Quality of article Mixed 215
Low 14 Academic ability
Medium 107 Low 67
High 162 Medium 13
Age High 109
Preschool 2 Underachievers 53
Primary 38 Mixed 23
Lower secondary 54 Type of outcome
Upper secondary 59 Reproductive 92
University 103 Transformational 122
Adult 14 Other 56
Selection Direction
Self 18 Teacher-directed 204
Whole classes 122 Self-directed 29
Other 130 Thrust of program
Test quality Attribution 12
Low 7 Motivation 20
Medium 16 Study skills 106
High 68 Structural 50
SOLO classification Feuerstein 64
Unistructural 29 Memory 18
Multistructural-near 16 Design of study
Multistructural-far 21 Control-experimental 188
Relational-near 29 Pretest-posttest 47
Relational-far 22 Other 34
Extended abstract 40 Outcome measure
Theoretical orientation Affect 44
Theoretical 234 Performance 157
Atheoretical 36 Study skills 69

analysis, the mean weighted effect size was 0.63.

A stem-and-leaf diagram of these effects is presented in Figure 1. As can be
seen, there is marked positive skew. A close inspection of the quality of the studies
which produced the 26 effect sizes greater than 1.4 did not reveal any pattern.
These 26 effects came from 11 different studies, and the mean across all effect
sizes within these 11 studies was close to the overall mean, which indicates that
the largest effects were not unique to any particular cohort.
A mean of 0.45 can be interpreted with reference to other influences on
outcomes in education. Hattie ( 1 9 8 7 , 1992) outlined a measurement procedure for
113

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
-0.9 86
-0.8 10
-0.7 2
-0.6 7
-0.5 774
-0.4 88
-0.3 8732211
-0.2 96422
-0.1 988776654443320
-0.0 9999877764443331
0.0 01111122233445556777779
0.1 0011122222333344455556777889
0.2 1112345557777778999
0.3 000011122334445555666788999
0.4 1333445667788889
0.5 0001233566667889
0.6 0112445
0.7 0235667779
0.8 01122589
0.9 114445667
1.0 012444557
1.1 0111136799
1.2 12479
1.3
1.4 009
1.5 0378
1.6 4666788
1.7 4
1.8 25678
1.9
2.0 45
2.1 6
2.2 35
2.3
2.4 6
FIGURE 1. Stem-and-leaf diagram of the effect sizes

ascertaining the typical effect of most innovations in education. Based on a

synthesis of 304 meta-analyses, he ascertained that an effect size of 0.40 was a
benchmark from which various innovations could be inteφreted (Table 3). That
is, across the 304 meta-analyses, based on more than 40,567 studies, the typical
effect size in educational interventions was 0.40. Of course, this is a global
benchmark, and more refined comparisons can be made to interventions similar to
the study skills interventions considered here. Table 3 presents a range of innova­
tions, and it can be seen that the overall effect of study skills programs is close to
114

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 3
Summary of relationships to achievement

No. of studies Overall effect size

School 4,310 0.25

Physical attributes 1,850 -0.05
Finances 658 0.12
Aims & policy 542 0.24
Parent involvement 339 0.46
Class environment 921 0.56
Social 1, 124 0.39
Mass media 274 -0.12
Peer 122 0.38
Home 728 0.67
Instructor 5,009 0.44
Style 1,075 0.42
Inservice education 3,912 0.49
Background 22 0.60
Instruction 5,710 0.47
Quantity 80 0.84
Quality 22 1.00
Methods 5,608 0.36
Mathematics 1,713 0.32
Science 1,562 0.36
Reading 2,333 0.50
Others 60 0.28
Pupil 2,249 0.47
Physical 905 0.21
Affective 355 0.24
Disposition to learn 93 0.61
Cognitive 896 1.04
Methods of instruction 21,382 0.29
Team teaching 41 0.06
Individualization 630 0.14
Audio-visual aids 6,060 0.16
Programmed instruction 220 0.18
Ability grouping 3,385 0.18
Learning hierarchies 24 0.19
Calculators 231 0.24
Instructional media 4,421 0.30
Testing 1,817 0.30
Computer-assisted instruction 566 0.31
Simulation & games 111 0.34
Questioning 134 0.41
Homework 110 0.43
Tutoring 125 0.50
Mastery learning 104 0.50
Bilingual programs 285 0.51
Goals 2,703 0.52
Acceleration 162 0.72
Direct instruction 253 0.82
Learning strategies 783 0.61
Behavioral objectives 111 0.12
Advance organizers 387 0.37
Remediation/feedback 146 0.65
Reinforcement 139 1.13
Grand total/mean 40,567 0.40

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
the typical benchmark figure of 0.40. There were six effects relating to study skills
embedded within other meta-analyses. These are listed in Table 4, and three are
greater than the typical classroom innovation effect size.
Impact of Moderating Variables on the
Relative Evaluation of Study Skills Programs
Table 5 presents the relations between various study characteristics and the
categorical models. All the ß w statistics are significant, which indicates wide
variation of the effect sizes within the groupings.
Background variables. It has been noted already that studies classified as low
in quality had greater mean effect sizes than the other studies. There were no
differences in the mean effect sizes derived from the studies classified as medium
(M = 0.45, n = 108) and high quality (M = 0.46, n = 162). Further, there were no
differences in the means relating to the nature of the research design. The mean
effect size from control groups (M = 0.42, n = 189) was close to the mean from
pretest-posttest group designs (M = 0.48, n = 47) and to the mean from other
designs (M = 0.59, n = 34). Journals report marginally more effective studies than
monographs, while dissertations tend to report interventions that are not effective.
The last finding could be caused by a greater reliance on tertiary student partici­
pants, for whom the effects are least; it should be noted that this cannot be
attributed to low-quality work being carried out by graduate students, because
poor studies have already been eliminated.
It was not possible to compare the socioeconomic backgrounds of the partici­
pants, as most studies either did not comment on this variable or used "mixed"
groups. Where there was information on socioeconomic background, the effect
sizes were based on too few studies (low M = 0.23, n = 31; middle M = 0.61, n =
21; high M = 0.02, n - 18). When students chose to seek study and learning skills
assistance the effect sizes were greater than when intact classes were used.
Structural complexity of the intervention. Table 6 shows the effect sizes for the
structural complexity of the interventions as classified by SOLO level, which is
our major independent variable. The dependent variables are classified into three
domains: performance, study skills, and affect. It can be seen that different
interventions have differing effects according to the dependent variable in ques­
tion; the "total" column for such comparisons is thus not very meaningful in itself.
The unistructural near (M = 0.83) and relational near (M = 0.77) programs have
high effect sizes across all outcomes, the latter mean being remarkably close to
that reported (M = 0.71) by Haller, Child, and Walberg (1988) for the same kind
of intervention (metacognitive, contextualized). If there were no moderators, then
it would be suggested that study skills programs that can be classified as unistructural
or relational are most effective.
Unistructural interventions have the strongest effect on performance. This is not
at all unexpected, as most such interventions were simple and taught directly with
narrow aims; in this they were highly successful, producing effect sizes approach­
ing one standard deviation (0.84). There is a positive effect on attitudes as reported
in one study. The majority of the performance measures were directly related to
the instructional material used in the intervention. These interventions were
designed to teach students to use such aids to memory as mnemonic devices,
graphic organizers, mental imagery, rehearsal, and strategy verbalization in order
116

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 4
Summary results from other meta-analyses relating to study skills
No. No. Effect
Topic Subject Ability Age Authors Date studies effects size
Study skills All Low College Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb 1983 32 32 .290
Meta-cognitive instruction Reading Normal All Haller, Child, & Walberg 1988 20 20 .710
Note taking All Normal All Henk & Stahl 1985 14 25 .340
Textual aids (e.g., underlining,
building internal connections) Science Normal All Horak 1985 40 472 .570
Study programs Reading Normal All Sanders 1980 28 66 .940
Test anxiety All Normal All Hembree 1988 562 811 -.260

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 5
Categorical models of the study characteristics
Weighted Standard
Variable and class g» n effect error ßw
Quality of study 0.99
Medium 108 0.45 .033 1,450.32
High 162 0.46 .070 1,795.67
Design of study 105.02
Control-experimental 189 0.42 .043 2,365.17
Pretest-posttest 47 0.48 .100 359.44
Other designs 34 0.59 .067 417.36
Publication type 224.12
Journal 207 0.55 .065 2,549.45
Book 22 0.41 .033 274.64
Thesis 41 0.00 .017 198.78
SOLO classification 165.81
Unistructural 30 0.83 .031 1,264.15
Multistructural—near 48 0.25 .026 454.01
Multistructural—far 27 0.41 .034 305.73
Relational—near 37 0.77 .083 219.42
Relational—far 64 0.29 .025 435.51
Extended abstract 64 0.42 .112 402.36
Testing conditions 2.41
Near 115 0.57 .046 2,073.98
Far 91 0.33 .027 768.17
Outcome measure 42.77
Performance 157 0.57 .041 2 , 160.83
Study skills 69 0.17 .086 634.11
Affect 44 0.48 .034 409.28
Type of outcome 92.98
Reproductive 80 0.66 .041 1,692.89
Transformational 99 0.43 .086 699.59
Other 91 0.30 .034 761.53
Thrust of program 107.26
Attribution 11 1.05 .127 74.08
Motivation 20 0.12 .017 106.81
Study skills 106 0.31 .028 845.06
Structural aids 50 0.58 .043 872.90
Feuerstein 64 0.42 .112 402.38
Memory 18 1.09 .039 838.50
Academic ability 113.75
Low ability 67 0.39 .107 386.04
Medium ability 13 0.80 .029 283.24
High ability 109 0.33 .029 1,415.88
Mixed 53 0.61 .049 893.87
Underachieving 28 0.64 .058 134.21
Direction 4.01
Teacher directed 204 0.44 .052 2,675.01
Self-directed 29 0.70 .071 249.68

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

TABLE 5 (continued)
Weighted Standard
Variable and class effect error ßw
Age of subjects 126.24
Primary 40 0.91 .061 1,014.13
Lower secondary 54 0.51 .061 316.49
Upper secondary 59 0.45 .101 729.61
University 103 0.28 .027 936.50
Adults 14 0.22 .024 124.02
Purpose of article 38.13
Specifically study 133 0.38 .025 1,999.70
Study secondary 137 0.53 .084 1,209.16
Selection of subjects 130.09
Self-selected 18 0.63 .030 150.83
Intact classes 122 0.33 .032 1,249.28
Other 130 0.54 .081 1,716.79
Theoretical orientation 110.31
Theoretical 234 0.45 .060 2,660.63
Atheoretical 36 0.47 .023 476.05

to improve the recall of the factual material that was actually used in the training
stage of the intervention. For this meta-analysis, we were not able to locate usable
(i.e., those with sufficient detail of intervention procedures or data) studies that
investigated whether students were able to transfer such memory strategies to
situations where they were required to learn material unrelated to that used in the
initial intervention. It seems that it is easier to use unistructural programs to
improve memory outcomes where students are not required to use more demand­
ing cognitive procedures such as the unprompted generation of strategy use in
different learning contexts and with unfamiliar content.
A study by Atkinson and Raugh (1975) provides a typical illustration of a
program classified as unistructural near. In this study, a group of Stanford Univer­
sity students were taught to use the mnemonic keyword method for learning
Russian vocabulary. This method divides the study of a vocabulary item into two

TABLE 6
Structural complexity of interventions by outcome measure
Performance Study skills Affect Total
Nature of Testing
the program conditions n M n M n M n M
Unistructural Near 29 0.84 1 0.56 30 0.83
Multistructural Near 16 0.45 24 0.03 8 0.53 48 0.25
Multistructural Far 21 0.25 3 1.13 3 0.81 27 0.41
Relational Near 29 0.62 1 0.88 7 1.40 37 0.77
Relational Far 22 0.33 34 0.22 8 0.49 64 0.29
Extended abstract 40 0.69 7 -0.16 17 0.02 64 0.42
Total/mean 157 0.57 69 0.16 44 0.48 270 0.45

119

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie

stages, one requiring a sound association between the spoken foreign word and an
English keyword and the other requiring the student to construct a mental image
of a physical interaction between the keyword and the English translation. It is not
surprising that an effect size of 1.13 was obtained for the experimental group.
Where students are taught a single and very specific strategy to help them
remember a list of words and are then tested on that same list, a reasonable degree
of success is to be expected. Although there was a follow-up test some weeks later
on which experimental students outperformed control students, again the test list
contained the same words that students had learned previously. To demonstrate
far transfer of the mnemonic strategy, a different list of words would have had to
be used. Similar results were found in two previous meta-analyses of vocabulary
instruction (Klesius & Searls, 1990; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986), in which the
mnemonic keyword method was found to produce positive effect sizes on imme­
diate posttests. Klesius and Searls, however, also found dramatic declines in
performance on delayed posttests.
Multistructural interventions are moderately successful in producing near trans­
fer on performance (M = 0.45) and positive attitudes to study (M = 0.53), but they
have no effect on reported use of study skills (M = 0.03). When far transfer is
tested, effects on performance drop to 0.25 but are massive on study skills (M =
1.13) and strong on affect (M = .81). However, it must be noted that these means
for affect and study skills are each based on only three effect sizes and that all
three effect sizes come from one study, Haslam and Brown (1968). They used the
Brown-Holzman Effective Study Skills Course and assessed the effects of this
course using the Brown-Holzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (Brown &
Holzman, 1967). Although the intent was far transfer, what one is seeing here may
be something close to "teaching to the test"; that is, the program addressed content
that was keyed to the self-report items in the survey itself. It must also be said,
however, that this study, along with others in the same category, did achieve small
gains in grade point average.
A demonstration of a successful application of a multistructural intervention
with near transfer is that of Schunk and Gunn (1986). One objective of this study
was to train children to use task strategies to solve division problems, with a view
to improving both performance and self-efficacy. These task strategies were
specific to the solving of problems with one to three digits in the divisor and two
to five digits in the dividend. A comparison of pretest and posttest scores on tests
that required students to solve the same sorts of division problems that were used
during the training sessions indicated a substantial improvement. Schunk and
Gunn also used path analysis to explore the theoretical relationships between task
strategies, attributions (ability, effort, task ease, and luck), self-efficacy, and
performance. The largest direct influence on changes in division skills was due to
the use of effective task strategies.
Relational near programs were systematically effective over all outcomes. In
relational near programs, a range of metacognitive interventions was aimed at
teaching students to change their attributional perspectives (Relich, Debus, &
Walker, 1986) and to use such strategies as self-questioning (Billingsley &
Wildman, 1988), identifying main ideas (Weisberg & Balajthy, 1990), concept
mapping (Okebukola & Jegede, 1988), and/or strategy monitoring (Lodico, Ghatala,
Levin, Pressley, & Bell, 1983). The degree of success on these and similar
120

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions
relational interventions was assessed using such measures as subject-based tests
of comprehension and measures of changes in persistence, self-efficacy,
metacognitive knowledge, learned helplessness, and problem-solving ability.
Studies by Billingsley and Wildman (1988) and Dendato and Diener (1986) are
examples of effective relational near programs. In the former, learning disabled
students who were taught to generate their own questions as a prereading activity
were better able than their control counterparts to recognize inconsistencies and
embedded errors in a reading passage. A meta-analysis of the effects of teaching
students to use self-questioning strategies (Huang, 1992) also found such inter­
ventions to be successful (effect size = 0.58).
In Dendato and Diener's (1986) study, test-anxious students were taught deep-
muscle relaxation and cognitive strategies to deal with irrational beliefs and
practices related to academic performance. When compared with the control
group, the treatment group obtained a lower average score on the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory. However, the intervention failed to improve subsequent class­
room test scores, thus illustrating the overall finding of this meta-analysis, already
noted, that programs are found to be more effective when outcome assessments
are closely related to the nature of the intervention rather than less closely related.
These results concur only in part with the findings from a meta-analysis by
Hembree (1988), in which it was concluded that test anxiety could be effectively
reduced by a variety of behavioral and cognitive treatments delivered in a broad
assortment of conditions, and that improved test performance and grade point
average consistently accompanied test anxiety reduction.
Relational interventions are much less successful, however, when tested in
areas far from the taught content (e.g., Amato, Bernard, D'Arnico, & DeBellefeuille,
1989; Purdie, 1989). These findings are in close accord with the literature:
Metacognitive programs taught in context and orchestrated to suit a particular task
are expected to be the most successful, and this would seem to be supported here.
It was not possible to trace causal paths, but it does seem likely that the all-around
effects achieved here, as opposed to the uneven effects of unistructural and
multistructural interventions, are due to common links: The intervention creates
effective strategy deployment and monitoring, which in turn produces satisfactory
cognitive and affective outcomes.
The extended abstract intervention, Feuerstein's (1969) Instrumental Enrich­
ment program, produced strong effect sizes on performance (0.69), zero effects on
affect, and perhaps even negative effects on study skills. Such an uneven pattern
must raise questions about the program, particularly as one of its major aims is to
enhance motivation. A detailed examination of the training activities, which
placed special emphasis on spatial skills, and the criterion test, which was usually
Ravens Progressive Matrices test, raises the suspicion that again what we are
seeing here is something very akin to "teaching to the test." It may have been more
defensible, if more paradoxical, to relabel these programs as extended abstract
near.
An inspection of the first column of means in Table 7 indicates that interven­
tions for enhanced learning have greater effects on performance outcomes when
the programs are based on material closely related to the subsequently assessed
material. This is evident in the larger means for the near categories. It appears that
the interventions best at enhancing performance of the unistructural or relational
121

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
TABLE 7
Structural complexity of interventions by type of outcome
Reproducing Transformational
Nature of the program
and testing conditions n M n M
Unistructural—near 28 0.88
Multistructural—near 7 1.00 6 0.42
Multistructural—far 8 0.36 15 0.22
Relational—near 27 0.54 2 1.37
Relational—far 10 0.38 12 0.55
Extended abstract—far 64 0.42
Total/mean 80 0.66 99 0.43

type are those focused on near transfer. The lowest effects are for multistructural
programs, both near and far. This finding is contrary to that of Kirschenbaum and
Perri (1982), who found that multiple-component (i.e., multistructural) interven­
tions were generally more successful than single-component interventions.
Overall, the effects of these interventions are greatest on performance, some­
what lower on affect, and comparatively much lower on study skills. Across all
three types of outcome measure, if only the testing conditions are considered, the
mean for the near conditions is 0.57 (n = 115), which is greater than the mean of
0.33 (n = 91) for the far conditions.
Except for the extended abstract programs, interventions for enhanced learning
also had very positive effects on affect. It is useful to examine more closely the
exact nature of this affective outcome as it was measured in the interventions
themselves. In general, the positive outcome was derived from measures of
attitude change. For example, students reported greater liking for teachers and
increased agreement with the goals of education (Gadzella, Goldston, &
Zimmerman, 1977) or more positive attitudes towards study and specific subjects
(Bean, Singer, Sorter, & Frazee, 1986; Dansereau et al., 1979; Haslam & Brown,
1968; Nist, Mealey, Simpson, & Kroc, 1990). A more positive attitude also was
reflected in reduced anxiety (Dansereau et al., 1979; Nist et al., 1990) and
increased task persistence (Relich et al., 1986).
The effects on study skills methods appear to be very small for programs aiming
at near and far transfer (where there is sufficient sample size). It is very difficult
to change the study skills that students have acquired, usually over many years of
study, and as will be later shown, older students are more resistant to change.The
improvement of student learning via the manipulation of study skills often fails to
take account of the interaction between students' intentions and the context of
learning. A learning skills intervention with first-year university students not only
failed to achieve increases in deep approaches to learning but also led to an
increase in surface approaches—the opposite of what was intended (Ramsden,
Beswick, & Bowden, 1986). It was suggested that the reason for this failure was
linked to the incorrect assumption that the observed behaviors of effective stu­
dents can be taught to less successful students independently of the teaching and
assessment context. Indeed, the less successful students perceived assessment
122

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

tasks as requiring rote learning, and as long as their perception existed, incorrect
though it may have been, students would ignore deep approaches and use self-
management skills to rote learn more effectively. Even when students do learn to
be more flexible in their use of learning strategies, rigid teaching contexts often
prevent the use of some strategies.
Reproductive versus transformational outcomes. If the various outcomes are
classified either as requiring students to simply reproduce the content of material
learned or as requiring them to express knowledge in different or creative ways,
then, as expected, the effect sizes are (a) greatest for the reproductive outcomes
when the intentions of study skills programs are towards the lower end of the
SOLO taxonomy but (b) reasonably consistent across most levels (Table 6). The
transformational effects are greater when the study skills programs are towards the
upper end of the SOLO taxonomy. When these were further subdivided into
different outcomes, then the effects on the performance outcomes were consis­
tently high. The effects on the study skills and affect outcomes are high only on
the reproductive programs (M = 0.71, n = 7) and much lower on the transforma­
tional programs (M = 0.20, n = 32).
Thrust of the program. Table 8 examines the effects of interventions with
different thrusts: attribution, motivation, study skills, structural aids, Feuerstein,
and memory. An intervention for enhanced learning is more likely to have a large
effect when its thrust is attribution, memory, or structural aids. The lowest effects
are associated with motivation and study skills.
When the thrust of the program is to change memory or attribution, the effects
on all outcomes are most positive (Table 8). The effects of motivation programs
are the lowest, although this result was derived from the findings of one study
(Purdie, 1989) in which an achievement motivation training program was found
to have mixed effects on the participants' approaches to studying. Although there
were positive effects of the program on students' study motives (a reduction in
surface motive and an increase in deep motive), these effects were not matched by
changes in surface and deep strategies.
There were only 6 effect sizes where attribution retraining was involved, but
overall effects were strong on performance (M = 0.60) and especially, as would be
expected, on affect (M = 1.32). Motivation training involved 20 effect sizes, all to
do with study skills, but was relatively ineffective (M = 0.11). Study skills

TABLE 8
Outcome measures by the thrust of the program
Performance Study skills Affect Total
n M n M n M n M
Attribution 6 0.60 6 1.32 12 0.96
Motivation 20 0.11 20 0.11
Study skills 47 0.26 41 0.23 18 0.63 106 0.31
Structural aids 46 0.58 1 0.88 3 0.53 50 0.58
Feuerstein 40 0.69 7 -0.16 17 0.02 64 0.42
Memory 18 1.09 18 1.09
Total/mean 157 0.57 69 0.16 44 0.48 270 0.45
123

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattίe, Biggs, and Purdie

training, oddly enough, had much stronger effects on affect (M = 0.63) than on
reported use of study skills (M = 0.23). This would suggest that study skills
training is more valuable as an anxiety reducer than as an enhancer of learning.
Programs using study skills as the major thrust were more effective with reproduc­
tive intentions (M = 0.54, n = 10) than with transformational intentions (M = 0.37,
n 3l).
Structural aids—such as advance organizers, summarizing (Armbruster, Ander­
son, & Ostertag, 1987); rehearsal (Dwyer, 1986), the selection and use of effective
task strategies (Schunk & Gunn, 1986), the construction of graphic organizers,
summary writing (Weisberg & Balajthy, 1990) and writing strategies like plan­
ning, organizing, writing, editing, and revising (Englert, Raphael, Anderson,
Anthony & Stevens, 1991)—appear to be uniformly effective, with an effect size
on performance of 0.58. Memory, when separated from other unistructural inter­
ventions, is even more powerful in its effect on performance, with an effect size
of 1.09.
When classifying by both thrust and SOLO categories, study skills programs
are more effective at the more complex end of the SOLO taxonomy (Table 9);
training in the use of structural aids is effective over most levels of the taxonomy
and for both near and far testing conditions, with the exception of three effect sizes
for relational far. Not surprisingly, the memory programs tended to be more
unistructural, which highlights the value of such programs in enhancing immedi­
ate and lower-order cognitive processes.
When the thrust of a program is to modify students' causal attributions for
academic achievement, effects are greatest in relational near contexts. This result
is based on eight effect sizes, all from one study (Relich et al., 1986). The other
four effect sizes were smaller and came from another study (Van Overwalle & De
Metsenaere, 1990) classified as multistructural. Despite the small number of
effect sizes, a comparison of the two programs provides some insight into reasons
for the greater effectiveness of the intervention reported by Relich et al. Students
who had previously been identified as learned helpless and deficient in particular
mathematics skills received attributional training in the context of mathematics
instruction. They were provided with opportunity over eight training sessions to
practice making attributions for success and failure on sets of mathematics prob­
lems, and they were given attribution feedback by the instructor. On the other
hand, in the intervention reported by Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere, the
attributional manipulation lasted only 50 minutes and consisted of a video presen­
tation showing real-life experiences of several students who discussed reasons for
their successes and failures in university examinations. Experimental students in
this study were provided neither with feedback about their attributions nor with
specific opportunity to practice new patterns of attribution. The effects were
trivially different from zero.
Attributes of the Students
Ability. The effect sizes are greatest for those in the middle of the academic
distribution and those classified as underachieving (see Table 10). It is probable
that these are the cohort most likely to seek study skills assistance, and they are
most likely to benefit, given their abilities to learn both from the content matter
taught and from the study skills applied. It seems that low-ability students are
124

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

TABLE 9
Structural complexity of the intervention by thrust of the program
Attribution Motivation Study skills Structural aids Feuerstein Memory
Nature of Testing
the program conditions n M n M n M n M n M n M
Unistructural Near 2 0.17 10 0.49 18 1.09
Multistructural Near 2 0.09 2 0.97 39 0.08 5 1.36
Multistructuraï Far 2 0.01 21 0.41 4 0.60
Relational Near 8 1.42 1 1.85 28 0.55
Relational Far 18 0.02 43 0.44 3 -0.17
Extended abstract Far 64 0.42
Total/mean 12 0.96 20 0.11 106 0.31 50 0.58 64 0.42 18 1.09

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Ha ie, Biggs, and Purdie

TABLE 10
Structural complexity of the intervention by academic ability
Under-
Low Medium Upper achieving Mixed
Nature of the program
and testing conditions n M n M n M n M n M
Unistructural—near 3 0.34 7 0.95 14 0.86 2 1.03 4 0.76
Multistructural—near 3 0.85 42 0.08 3 1.99
Multistructural—far 2 0.22 2 0.47 19 0.25 4 1.24
Relational—near 2 0.96 21 0.68 14 0.88
Relational—far 1 0.23 32 0.42 21 0.12 10 0.24
Extended abstract—far 62 0.40 2 1.09
Total/mean 67 0.39 13 0.80 109 0.33 53 0.61 28 0.64

unable to benefit from interventions of most kinds, with the Feuerstein programs
being the exception.
The medium-ability students benefit most from unistructural and multistructural
programs, whereas the underachieving students benefit from all programs (Table
10). It is the underachievers and higher-ability students who benefit more from the
programs at the relational level, whereas it is the medium-ability and underachiev­
ing students who benefit more at the multistructural levels. The higher-ability
students benefit from memory (M = 1.82, n = 5) and affect (M = 0.63, n = 17) but
otherwise not at all.
Age. Interventions may be effective across all age groups, but it is the youngest
students who accrue the greatest benefits across all outcomes. University students
and adults show much lower effects on their performance outcomes but stronger
effects on affect (Table 11). Study skills training is more effective with young
students and becomes relatively ineffective at the upper secondary and tertiary
levels, which adds further support to the point already made that students' actual
study behaviors are developed and maintained to cope with a little-changing
teaching context.
Although most programs in which the thrust is study skills use university
students, the effects on study skills are minimal. Most affective outcomes for
university students related either to improved attitudes towards learning or to the

TABLE 11
Outcome measure moderated by age of students
Performance Study skills Affect
Age of students n M n M n M
Preprimary 2 0.79
Primary 31 0.84 1 0.88 6 1.32
Lower secondary 44 0.58 2 0.44 8 0.09
Upper secondary 231 1.05 25 0.07 13 0.21
University 51 0.27 41 0.19 11 0.68
Adults 6 0.06 6 0.43
126

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

reduction of anxiety. One intervention with university students (Gadzella et al.,

1977) showed clearly the relative impact of study skills training on performance
and affect. The experimental group, after participation in a fairly traditional
program dealing with such topics as managing time, improving memory, taking
lecture notes, improving concentration, improving scholastic motivation, reading
text books, writing reports, and taking examinations, showed no significant im­
provement in academic performance when compared with the control group
(effect size = -0.16). There was, however, a marked improvement for the treat­
ment group in study attitudes (effect size = 0.57). That is, after attending study
skills programs, students have more positive attitudes towards their study, but
these positive attitudes do not necessarily translate into performance outcomes.
Across the various moderators, then, university- and college-level populations
of high ability and high socioeconomic status seem rather more resistant to
intervention than younger, middle-ability students. These findings could in part
suggest a ceiling effect—it may be more difficult to raise the performance of
already high-performing students—but other more complex factors are likely to
operate too. Why, for example, should high-performing students see the need to
change their study skills, attributions, or other factors moderating their perfor­
mance?
Other Moderators
In various models of educational productivity (e.g., Hattie, 1992; Walberg,
1981), it has been suggested that the effects of programs on academic performance
follow a law of diminishing returns. Programs of shorter duration would have
greatest initial impact and a reducing impact over time. The majority of the
programs considered in this review were of short duration; 37% were imple­
mented for only 1-2 days, 13% for 3-4 days, 19% for 5-31 days, and 31% for
more than 1 month. The correlation between the effect size and the length of a
program overall was -.14 (n = 194); although there was a curvilinear trend. The
effect size was greatest for the shortest programs. For programs of 1-2 days, the
mean effect size was 0.58, n = 55; for programs of 3-4 days, the mean effect size
was 0.28, n = 40; for programs of 4-30 days, the mean effect size was 0.76, n =
46. Programs that were shorter than 30 days were positively correlated with effect
sizes (r = .14, n = 141), whereas programs longer than 30 days showed diminish­
ing returns (r = -.16, n = 62).
Self-directed programs are more effective across all outcomes (performance,
study skills, and affect) than those directed by teachers. These effects are more
marked on affect than on performance. Teacher-directed programs are more
effective on performance outcomes (M = 0.55, n = 132) than on affect (M = 0.26,
n = 8) and study skills (M = 0.22, n = 44).
There are only small differences in the means across the three outcomes when
moderated by whether the purpose of a study was specifically to evaluate a study
skills program or study skills interventions were only secondary (Table 12).
Conclusions
The present analysis, based on 270 effect sizes from 51 studies, produced an
average effect size of 0.45. This figure, however, combines effects on perfor­
mance, study skills, and affect. The more appropriate summaries are 0.57 for
127

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie

TABLE 12
Outcome measure moderated by purpose of the study
Performance Study skills Affect
Purpose n M n M n M
Specifically study 56 0.52 57 0.15 20 0.62
Secondarily study 101 0.61 69 0.17 44 0.48

performance, 0.16 for study skills, and 0.48 for affect. The greatest effect is thus
on performance, which yields a figure as high as that for typical innovations in
education; ironically, the smallest effect relates to the reported use of study skills
on the various outcomes. The performance figure itself breaks down to 1.09 for
memory only, 0.69 on reproductive performance in general (i.e., a low cognitive
performance level), and 0.53 for transformational performance, which is a high
level of cognitive processing. When we look at the nature of the enhanced learning
intervention programs that produce these effects, and with whom these interven­
tions are most successful, a clear and comprehensible picture emerges.
Unistructural programs, involving direct teaching of mostly mnemonic devices,
are highly effective with virtually all students. Effect sizes greater than 1.0 are
typically found for reproductive performances. Much the same is the case for
multistructural programs, such as conventional study skills training, being used
for near transfer on low-cognitive-level tasks. When multistructural programs are
used for high cognitive levels or for far transfer, they are not effective, except in
one study (Haslam & Brown, 1968), which found that reported use of study skills
and effects were enhanced. Multistructural approaches were most effective, when
they worked at all, with younger rather than older students.
When relational programs, which integrate the informed use of strategies to suit
particular content, were used for near transfer, they were highly effective in all
domains (performance, study skills, and affect) over all ages and ability levels, but
were particularly useful with high-ability and older students. This is very reason­
able in view of the high cognitive demands metacognitive interventions, based on
conditional knowledge, are likely to make.
Given that unistructural methods were highly effective with everybody, for
their own limited purposes, groups of different ability levels otherwise showed
different degrees of receptiveness to intervention. Mixed-ability students, under-
achievers, and younger (primary and early secondary) students were relatively
receptive to interventions, particularly unistructural and multistructural. Low-
ability children were least amenable to intervention, possibly because they were
least able to comprehend instructions, but more likely because the programs
tended to be too demanding on subjects. At all events, there seems to be a problem
in achieving change in the low-ability group that needs addressing in future
research.
What might we then conclude from this meta-analysis? Despite, perhaps, the
conventional wisdom, most intervention does work most of the time. After all, the
effect size over all studies was 0.45; and a very respectable 0.57 for performance.
Even when we allow for the very clear success of mnemonic-type programs, this
128

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

figure becomes 0.53 on transformational, or higher-cognitive-order, performance.

This is as good as any figure reported for teaching methods elsewhere (Hattie,
1992). When classified according to level of structural complexity, single-compo­
nent interventions concentrating on near transfer of a specific task-related skill
were more effective than multiple-component interventions. Relational interven­
tions, which aimed to change a range of metacognitive behaviors in context, were
also systematically effective in near transfer situations; far transfer of skills was
less likely to have occurred.
We might ask if these findings take us further in our knowledge of the effects
of study skills and strategy training. The general outline is quite compatible with
our previous literature review, which suggested that best results came when
strategy training was used metacognitively, with appropriate motivational and
contextual support. The first point, then, is that we can now live more comfortably
with that conclusion; it is clearly supported by the empirical evidence, and we now
have clear data about the relative efficacy of different types of interventions.
Second, we find that the typical study skills training package is indeed not so
effective as metacognitive and contextualized intervention, but it is significantly
better than nothing—clearly so in the case of younger students, and only margin­
ally so in the case of college students. The verdict must still be out in the case of
more ambitious "learning-to-learn" programs in view of doubts about the suitabil­
ity of the performance criteria.
Finally, we might conclude that the SOLO taxonomy not only provides a
mutually exclusive and practically convenient way of classifying interventions
that makes considerable theoretical sense, but also shows the power of the
taxonomy for purposes other than classifying performance outcomes themselves.
The taxonomy was relatively easy to apply to the interventions, and the major
results were easily interpreted relative to the levels of the taxonomy. It could be
most useful for future researchers to use the SOLO taxonomy to elaborate on the
aims and methods used in their interventions, and we suggest that the nature of the
outcomes will be related to the level of the taxonomy.
Implications for Practice
What do these findings mean for the practitioner? Basically, there are three sets
of implications for addressing (a) low-level outcomes. ( b ) high-level outcomes,
and (c) other kinds of outcomes.
If the intention is to teach for simple retention of accurate detail, then the use
of mnemonics—such as using imagery or linking items to be learned or associated
with keywords—is highly effective. Good teachers have long used such methods:
ROYGBIV, as an acronym for the colors of the rainbow; HOMES, for the five
Great Lakes; or the use of keywords to link associates such as foreign language
meanings or technical terms. When students have to remember procedures, for­
mulas, facts, or lists, such highly directive training ("this is the rule, just follow it")
is sensible and productive. What this does not do, of course, is to involve the
higher-level cognitive processes, and therefore it is suitable only for the quite
specific purpose of facilitating accurate recall, independently of understanding.
If, however, the intention is to help students understand content with a view to
applying it in a new context, then more complex strategies are indicated. First, one
needs to be cautious about the word "new." The question is how new. So-called
129

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
near transfer is very much easier to obtain than far transfer; that is, a strategy
suitable for aiding comprehension, such as finding the main idea in a text passage,
is more likely to be successful when the strategy is applied to content similar to
that in which training in the strategy took place. A very strong implication of this
is that study skills training ought to take place in the teaching of content rather
than in a counseling or remedial center as a general or all-purpose package of
portable skills. The major effect of teaching study skills was relatively minor on
both performance and reported use of study skills but strong on students' attitudes
to their work.
A related point is that strategy training should be taught with understanding of
the conditions under which the strategy works. This, of course, is precisely what
is absent in mnemonic training, which simply involves drilling in "the rule." If
transfer is to take place, the student needs to understand the basis of how the
strategy works, when and under what circumstances it is most appropriate, what
it requires of the learner; to the extent that this conditional knowledge is properly
understood, the strategy may be deployed in contexts "farther" from those in
which it was first learned. As Perkins and Salomon (1989) emphasize, we do not
get something for nothing; the further the extent of transfer, the more conditional
knowledge and the deeper the content knowledge required.
If improved note taking is the target of intervention, for example, teachers of all
subjects will use content from their own areas. They will recognize that different
tasks will require different approaches to note taking, depending on their curricu­
lum aims. The approach best for taking notes while watching a video about, say,
the life cycle of a frog will be different from the approach best for taking notes
while studying an art history textbook. The one will focus on speed of recording
information and will probably occur at a verbatim level; the other will focus on the
ability to select the most important points and to organize them into a meaningful
structure. The first is an example of working at the unistructural and/or
multistructural levels, whereas in the second example there is opportunity for
students to work at the relational level. In both cases students will need to know
the purpose of their note taking, that is, the conditions under which they will be
required to apply any learning gained from the note taking experience: Are they
preparing for a test next week (essay or multiple-choice?), or an end of year exam,
or an oral presentation to the class?
As to other kinds of outcomes, oddly enough, directly addressing study skills
did not seem particularly fruitful. The desired effect of study skills training—
enhanced performance—is better achieved by addressing performance directly, in
the relational near manner discussed above.
Affect, on the other hand, is much more amenable to change by intervention;
ironically, study skills training is more effective in improving attitudes than in
improving study skills themselves. However, the most striking improvements in
the affective domain came about with attribution training, in which students are
trained to change their attributions for success and failure from maladaptive
(success due to effort, failure to lack of ability) to adaptive ones (success due to
ability, failure to lack of effort). Again, transfer was limited to the extent that
ability is seen as task specific. For example, the reasons attributed to perceived
failure in math may not apply to other content areas. While the implications of
attribution training for teachers in teacher-student interactions are important, this
130

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions

is not our present concern, which is with interventions over and above the context
of teaching itself.
When the aim is to change students' attributions for success and failure,
teachers should emphasize the importance of systematically using strategies ap­
propriate to the task in hand. The way in which teachers give feedback to students
about their use of strategies will probably influence their attributions for success
or failure more than will feedback regarding either ability or effort. Two studies
in this meta-analysis demonstrated the desirability of providing feedback that
explicitly links improved performance with strategy use (Schunk & Cox, 1986;
Schunk & Gunn, 1986). Schunk and Cox suggest that the teacher who tells a
student, "That's good, you're really working hard" (effort attributional feedback),
may not be as effective as the one who links success with appropriate strategy use,
as in "That's correct. You got it right because you applied the steps in the right
order."
In general, then, the thrust of these findings is quite compatible with the thrust
of situated cognition and its implications (J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Marton, 1988) and with systems theory (Biggs, 1993). That is, improving learning
is less likely to be achieved by targeting the individual in terms of a deficit model,
which presupposes that the individual is lacking the right strategies and needs to
be taught them or is using the wrong strategies and needs to have them removed.
The results of this meta-analysis support the notion of situated cognition, whereby
it is recommended that training other than for simple mnemonic performance
should (a) be in context. ( b ) use tasks within the same domain as the target content.
Strategy training should be seen as a balanced system in which the individual's
abilities, insights, and sense of responsibility are brought into use, so that the
strategies that are appropriate to the task at hand can be used. The student will
need to know what those strategies are, of course, and also the conditional
knowledge that empowers them: the how, when, where, and why of their use. In
other words, effective strategy training becomes embedded in the teaching context
itself, a conclusion that has profound implications for future research, develop­
ment, and application in strategy training.

This analysis, then, returns to the issue of the teaching context itself and points
to the central importance of the interface between interventions involving strategy
and attribution training and the teaching context. We have not been able in the
space available to address that issue adequately, but that is a matter of one thing
at a time. We wished in the present article to determine which interventions appear
to work and under what conditions different kinds of intervention work best. We
have addressed that issue, and the results are clear. To fully explore the relation­
ship between the present results and teaching is quite a different exercise and, at
this stage, probably not a meta-analytic one.

References
References marked with asterisks indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
*Amato, J. L., Bernard, R. M, D'Amico, M, & DeBellefeuille, B. (1989). Can
instructional variables be combined effectively to enhance learning achievement?
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 78(2), 85-109.
131

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
* Andre, M. E., & Anderson, T. H. (1979). The development and evaluation of a self-
questioning study technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 605-623.
*Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/
summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Re­
search Quarterly, 22(3), 331-346.
* Atkinson, R. C, & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword
method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal ofExperimental Psychol­
ogy: Human Learning and Memory, 104(2), 126-133.
*Barnes, J. A., Ginther, D. W., & Cochran, S. W. (1989). Schema and purpose in reading
comprehension and learning vocabulary from context. Reading Research and In­
struction, 28(2), 16-28.
*Bean, T. W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effects of metacognitive
instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students' comprehen­
sion in a tenth-grade world history class. Journal ofReading Behavior, 18, 153-169.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Students' approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria,
Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure?
A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
63, 3-19.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO
taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
*Billingsley, B. S., & Wildman, T. M. (1988). The effects of prereading activities on
the comprehension monitoring of learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabili­
ties Research, 4(1), 36^‡4.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction
as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
*Bretzing, B. H., Kulhavy, R. W., & Caterino, L. C. (1987). Notetaking by junior high
students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 359-362.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 7, pp.
55-113). New York: Academic Press.
*Brown, A. L., & Barclay, C. R. (1976). The effects of training specific mnemonics
on the metamnemonic efficiency of retarded children. Child Development, 47, 7 1 -
80.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,
remembering, and understanding. In J. H. FΊavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Hand­
book of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York:
Wiley.
*Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C, & Barclay, C. R. (1979). Training self-checking
routines for estimating test readiness: Generalization from list learning to prose recall.
Child Development, 50, 501-512.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-^-2.
Brown, W. F., & Holzman, W. H. (1967). Survey of study habits and attitudes. New
York: The Psychological Corporation.
*Casey, M. B. (1990). A planning and problem-solving preschool model: The meth­
odology of being a good learner. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 53-67.
*Danner, F. W., & Taylor, A. M. (1973). Integrated pictures and relational imagery
training in children's learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 47-
54.
*Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Collins, K. W., Garland, J., Holley, C. D.,
Diekhoff, G. M., & Evans, S. H. (1979). Evaluation of a learning strategy system.

132

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions
In H. O'Neil & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp.
3-43). New York: Academic Press.
*Dendato, K. M., & Diener, D. (1986). Effectiveness of cognitive/relaxation therapy
and study-skills training in reducing self-reported anxiety and improving the aca­
demic performance of test-anxious students. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
33(2), 131-135.
Deny, S. J., &Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From
theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56, 1-39.
*Dwyer, C. A. (1986). The effect of varied rehearsal strategies in facilitating achieve­
ment of different educational objectives as measured by verbal and visual testing
modes. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(2), 73-84.
*Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D.
(1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and
special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-
372.
Feuerstein, R. (1969). The Instrumental Enrichment method: An outline of theory and
technique. Jerusalem: Hadassah-WIZO-Canada Research Institute.
*Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., & Jensen, M. R.
(1981). Cognitive modifiability in adolescence: Cognitive structure and the effects
of intervention. Journal of Special Education, 75(2), 269-287.
*Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1979). Cognitive
modifiability in retarded adolescents: Effects of Instrumental Enrichment. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83(6), 539-550.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psycho­
logical inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
*Gadzella, B. M., Goldston, J. T., & Zimmerman, M. L. (1977). Effectiveness of
exposure to study techniques on college students' perceptions. Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 77(1), 26-30.
Gagne, R. M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Educational Psychologist,
15, 84-92.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a
theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.
*Greiner, J. M., & Karoly, P. (1976). Effects of self-control training on study activity
and academic performance: An analysis of self-monitoring, self-reward, and system­
atic-planning components. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23(6), 495-502.
Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught?
A quantitative synthesis of "metacognitive" studies. Educational Researcher, 77(9),
5-8.
Hartley, J. (1986). Improving study skills. British Journal ofEducational Research, 12,
111-123.
*Haslam, W. L., & Brown, W. F. (1968). Effectiveness of study-skills instruction for
high school sophomores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(4), 223-226.
Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A
synthesis of meta-analyses. International Journal ofEducational Research, 11, 187—
212.
Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Educa-
tion, 36, 5-13.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York:
Academic Press.
Hembree, R. (1988). Experiments and relational studies in problem solving: A meta-
analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 242-273.
Henk, W. A., & Stahl, N. A. (1985). A meta-analysis of the effect of notetaking on

133

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie
learning from lectures. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 34, 70-75.
Huang, Z. (1992). A meta-analysis of student self-questioning strategies. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52(11), 3874A.
*Judd, W. A., McCombs, B. J., & Dobrovolny, J. L. (1979). Time management as a
learning strategy for individualized instruction. In H. O' Neil & C. Spielberger (Eds.),
Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 133-175). New York: Academic
Press.
*Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1987). Effects of notetaking, the instructor's notes,
and higher-order practice questions on factual and higher-order learning. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 14(4), 186-194.
Kirschenbaum, D. S., & Perri, M. G. (1982). Improving academic competence in adults:
A review of recent research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 76-94.
* Klein, J. D., & Freitag, E. T. (1992). Training students to utilize self-motivational
strategies. Educational Technology, 52(3), 44-48.
Klesius, J. P., & Searls, E. F. (1990). A meta-analysis of recent research in meaning
vocabulary instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(4),
226-235.
*Kratzing, M. (1992). Learning management practice in the facilitation of learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia.
Kulik, C. C , Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J. (1983). College programs for high-risk and
disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Re-
search, 53, 397-414.
*Lange, G., Guttentag, R. E., & Nida, R. E. (1990). Relationship between study
organization, retrieval organization, and general and strategy-specific memory
knowledge in young children. Journal of Experimental and Child Psychology, 49,
126-146.
*Lodico, M. G., Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., & Bell, J. A. (1983). The
effects of strategy-monitoring training on children's selection of effective memory
strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 263-277'.
*Martin, D. (1984). Cognitive modification for the hearing impaired adolescent: The
promise. Exceptional Children, 57(3), 235-242.
Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.),
Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 53-82). New York: Plenum.
*McBride, S. D., & Dwyer, F. M. (1985). Organizational chunking and postquestions
in facilitating student ability to profit from visualized instruction. Journal of Experi-
mental Education, 53(3), 148-155.
McCombs, B. L. (1984). Processes and skills underlying continuing intrinsic motivation
to learn: Toward a definition of motivational skills training interventions. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 19, 199-218.
*McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y. (1985). Teaching learning strategies.
Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 153-160.
*Morgan, M. (1985). Self-monitoring of attained subgoals in private study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(6), 623-630.
*Narrol, H., Silverman, H., & Waksman, M. (1982). Developing cognitive potential
in vocational high school students. Journal ofEducational Re search, 76(2), 107-112.
*Nist, S. L., Mealey, D. L., Simpson, M. L., & Kroc, R. (1990). Measuring the affective
and cognitive growth of regularly admitted and developmental studies students using
the "Learning and Study Strategies Inventory" (LASSI). Reading Research and
Instruction, 3O(\), 44-49.
*Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (1989). PLAE, a validated study strategy. Journal of
Reading, 33(3), 182-186.
*Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1988). Cognitive preferences and learning mode

134

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

 Effects of Study Skills Interventions
as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Educa-
tion, 72(4), 489-500.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational
Researcher, 75(1), 16-25.
Pintrich, P., & de Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning compo­
nents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
33-40.
*Purdie, N. M. (1989). The effect of motivation training on approaches to studying and
self-concept in female secondary students. Unpublished master's thesis, University
of Western Australia.
Ramsden, P., Beswick, D., & Bowden, J. (1986). Effects of learning skills interventions
on first year university students' learning. Human Learning, 5, 151-164.
*Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., & Friedlender, Y. (1981). The
Instrumental Enrichment Program: Immediate and long-term effects. In P. Mittler
(Ed.), Frontiers ofknowledge in mental retardation (Vol. 1, pp. 141-152). Baltimore:
University Park Press.
*Rand, Y., Tannenbaum, A. J., & Feuerstein, R. (1979). Effects of Instrumental
Enrichment on the psychoeducational development of low-functioning adolescents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 751-763.
*Relich, J. D., Debus, R. L., & Walker, R. (1986). The mediating role of attribution
and self-efficacy variables for treatment effects on achievement outcomes. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 11, 195-216.
Sanders, V. (1980, March). College reading and study programs: Do they make any
difference? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western College Reading
Association, San Francisco, CA.
*Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with
learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 201-209.
*Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence
of task strategies and attributions. Journal ofEducational Research, 79(4), 238-244.
*Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986a). Acquisition and transfer of learning
strategies by gifted and nongifted students. Exceptional Children, 55(1), 153-166.
*Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986b). Improving the test-taking skills of
behaviorally disordered and learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, 53( 1),
63-68.
*Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Levin, J. L., McLoone, B., Gaffney, J. S., & Prater,
M. A. (1985). Increasing content-area learning: A comparison of mnemonic and
visual-spatial direct instruction. Learning Disabilities Research, 7(1), 18-31.
*Shayer, M., & Beasley, F. (1987). Does instrumental enrichment work? British
Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 101-119.
*Simbo, F. K. (1988). The effects of notetaking approaches on student achievement in
secondary school geography. Journal of Educational Research, 81(6), 377-381.
Snowman. J. (1984). Learning tactics and strategies. In G. D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),
Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking and problem solving (pp.
243-276). New York: Academic Press.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. A. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-
based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72-110.
Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training. Educational Researcher,
72(2), 6-12.
*Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1988). Elaborative and integrative thought processes in
mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8O(\), 54-66.
Tabberer, R. (1984). Introducing study skills at 16-19. Educational Research, 26, 1-
6.

135

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014

Hattie, Biggs, and Purdìe
*Van Overwalle, F., & De Metsenaere, M. (1990). The effects of attribution-based
intervention and study strategy training on academic achievement in college fresh­
men. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 299-311.
Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. H.
Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education (pp. 81-108). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan
*Weinstein, C. E., Underwood, V. L., Wicker, F. W., & Cubberly, W. E. (1979).
Cognitive learning strategies: Verbal and imaginal elaboration. In H. O'Neil & C.
Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 45-75). New
York: Academic Press.
*Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Development of disabled readers'
metacomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text:
Results of three studies. Journal of Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities
International, 6, 117-136.
*Wilson, N. S. (1986). Effects of a classroom guidance unit on sixth graders' exami­
nation performance. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 25(2), 7 0 -
79.

Authors
JOHN HATTIE is Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Research and
Methodology, 209 Curry, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412-
5001; [email protected]. He specializes in measurement, self-concept, and
teaching and learning.
JOHN BIGGS is Professor, Department of Education, University of Hong Kong. He
specializes in learning and cognition, study processes, and cross-cultural learning
theories.
NOLA PURDIE is Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Austra­
lia. She specializes in cross-cultural learning and study skills.

Received November 16, 1994

Revision received November 28, 1995
Second revision received February 7, 1996
Accepted February 20, 1996

136

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by Sheraz Ahmad on July 19, 2014