STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 1

Practical Considerations for Independent Student Learning: A Research Synthesis

Justin Sung

iCanStudy ™ Proprietary Limited

Author note

Justin Sung is the co-founder and head of learning at iCanStudy ™ Proprietary

Limited, which sells evidence-based studying techniques. Findings from this report influence

the design, development and presentation of products. This work is the intellectual property

of iCanStudy Pty Limited and is protected under copyright laws.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 2

Research Synthesis

Students engage in various activities in an attempt to increase their knowledge

processing and retention. The process of acquiring knowledge is called learning. This

research synthesis will review the literature on memory; encoding; retrieval; inquiry-based

learning; and notetaking. Through examining the state of the science in these fields, we will

derive the practical implications, gaps in research and potential hypotheses for a consilient

approach to study technique development. Notably, this synthesis will take a practice-

oriented view with emphasis on research implications for individual students, rather than for

educational institutions.

Memory and Cognitive Load

Some sensory information we consume is retained while some is forgotten. If we can

determine why we forget some information while retaining others, we can theoretically

calibrate all subsequent studying techniques to these principles. Improving memory with a

reduced reliance on repetition would help make studying less tedious, monotonous and time-

consuming. Furthermore, the meta-cognitive knowledge of effective learning can be

anticipated to improve student empowerment and facilitate student autonomy. This section

will examine the nature of memory and establish some guidelines for creating and evaluating

study techniques. We will draw significantly on the contributions of Professor John Sweller,

the pioneer of cognitive load theory (CLT).

Human Cognitive Architecture and Cognitive Load Theory

CLT leverages evolutionary theory to create instructional procedures based on human

cognitive architecture (Sweller, 2011). It expands on the work by Geary (2008), who

categorised knowledge into biologically primary and secondary. Biologically primary

knowledge is trans-generational knowledge, including skills such as listening to speech or

recognising faces (Geary & Geary, 2007). This information may be genetically transferred

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 3

and can be acquired easily without explicit instruction. However, in some cases, students may

need to be instructed that certain transferable cognitive skills (known as generic-cognitive

skills), such as metacognition, can be applied in a domain-specific context. Still, it is thought

that the generic-cognitive skill itself does not need to be taught (Youssef-Shalala et al., 2014).

On the other hand, biologically secondary knowledge is acquired through instruction.

For example, almost all domain-specific subject material learned in formal education is

secondary knowledge. The characteristics and processes behind acquiring biologically

primary knowledge are different from those for acquiring biologically secondary knowledge.

As an important example, the current known limitations of human working memory are only

relevant to acquiring biologically secondary knowledge and skills (Sweller, 2011). As

explained by Sweller (2016b), once successfully acquired, this biologically secondary

knowledge is stored in our long-term memory via elements of human cognitive architecture,

which appear to follow several empirically discovered principles. More recent explanations

of CLT emphasise the evolutionary basis of psychology, which assists in generating new

hypotheses and explaining observations (Sweller, 2016a); however, it will not be discussed in

detail in this report as its pragmatic implications are less immediately relevant.

The Information Store Principle

The information store principle dictates that a large volume of information is stored in

aspects of our cognitive architecture through long-term memory. Though ontologically

simple, it is important to understand that practical differences in knowledge and skill are

influenced by differential knowledge in long-term memory as well as working memory

capacity. For example, an expert with a large body of long-term memory in a domain is likely

to overwhelm the advantage of a beginner with superior working memory through a higher

proportion of automatic pattern recognition (system 2) thinking, compared to the beginner’s

reliance on slower problem-solving and cognitive load intensive (system 1) thinking

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 4

(Kahneman, 2011). On the other hand, two individuals with similar levels of knowledge

could have different levels of skill due to differences in their respective working memories.

This dynamic relationship between working memory capacity and prior long-term knowledge

has been demonstrated in many studies spanning a wide range of domains and disciplines

(Chiesi et al., 1979; Egan & Schwartz, 1979; Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Jeffries et al., 1981;

Meinz & Hambrick, 2010; Simon & Gilmartin, 1973; Sweller & Cooper, 1985).

The Borrowing and Reorganising Principle

Most biologically secondary information is taken or “borrowed” from the long-term

memories of others. While the act of taking information from others is biologically primary,

the techniques we might use to facilitate this, such as notetaking, are biologically secondary.

Once information has been borrowed, it is then reorganised. Information that conforms with

previously held memories becomes enhanced, while information that does not align is

diminished (Bartlett & Bartlett, 1995). Whenever information is recalled, new information is

combined with existing information in our long-term memory, undergoing a constant process

of recombination and reorganisation. Learning techniques that facilitate this borrowing and

reorganisation seem effective, exemplified by the worked examples instruction technique

outlined below (Renkl, 2014).

The Randomness as Genesis Principle

The borrowing and reorganising principle accounts for the majority of how

biologically secondary information is acquired, whereas the randomness as genesis principle

accounts for how this information was initially created. Drawing parallels with the concept of

random genetic mutation in the process of natural selection, human problem solving is

theorised to follow two potential pathways (Sweller, 2016b). First, if a problem is recognised

via the patterns stored in long-term memory, the appropriate pattern can be retrieved and

applied in the situation, similar to a template. Second, if no such pattern exists, a generate and

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 5

test approach is followed, commonly as part of a means-end problem-solving strategy

(Newell & Simon, 1972). In this strategy, possible moves are chosen and tested for

effectiveness. If the tested solution reduces the difference between the current problem state

and the goal state, it is accepted and stored in long-term memory.

There are strong parallels between the process implied by the randomness as genesis

principle and the prolific experiential learning cycle by Kolb (2014). Interestingly, there are

also many conceptual parallels with the popular inquiry-based learning approach (Khalaf,

2018), which Sweller (2021) himself admonished due to an apparent lack of both theoretical

and empirical support. We will later reconcile some of these differences by explaining how

these two approaches may not be mutually exclusive. In our experience, with novel

modifications to the implementation procedure, these strategies can augment each other.

The Narrow Limits of Change Principle

The inherent limitations of the working memory mean that it is not viable to process

massive volumes of novel information at once. This restricts the number of combinations of

testing possibilities that occur during randomness as genesis. Though Sweller (2016b)

describes this dynamic as the working memory protecting long-term knowledge structures

from unmitigated, potentially harmful changes, there is no clear evidence to suggest that this

evolved as a primarily protective, naturally selected feature. Instead, it may simply be that

inherent limitations of the human working memory prohibit large volumes of information

from being processed, with protection being a positive side effect. However, understanding

the origin of this dynamic is functionally irrelevant, and it must simply be acknowledged that

dramatic changes in knowledge structures are not possible due to a cap set by the working

memory. This limitation has potentially significant implications when considering the

formation of new techniques, which will be discussed later.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 6

The Environmental Organising and Linking Principle

This principle describes the characteristics of memory when retrieving information

that has already been encoded into long-term memory. While the narrow limits of change

principle prevent massive amounts of data to be encoded at once, there are no clear limits to

the amount of data that can be retrieved and utilised. As a result, the human brain appears

capable of retrieving remarkable quantities of information and manipulating this information

for a diverse range of applications, depending on the environmental signal and trigger that

necessitated the retrieval in the first place (Sweller, 2016b). We hypothesise that working

memory limitations during encoding can be functionally overcome through frequent cycles of

encoding and retrieval, leveraging off the ability to mobilise vast volumes of information.

This then can facilitate the encoding of novel information in a positive feedback cycle. This

hypothesis will be developed further with our studying system.

Application of Cognitive Load Theory

Sweller (2016b) posits that extraneous cognitive load must be reduced through

explicit instruction to overcome working memory limitations. This position is strongly

supported by research on effective instructional techniques. For example, in a review by

Renkl (2014), the usage of multiple worked examples was significantly superior in efficacy

and time-efficiency compared to observational learning or analogical problem-solving. In the

worked examples model of learning, skills are initially acquired through reviewing multiple

problems with worked solutions. It is hypothesised to reduce the extraneous and learning-

irrelevant cognitive load, thereby improving the learner’s ability for schema construction

(Renkl, 2014). This model follows the skills acquisition phases, initially outlined by VanLehn

(1996), of (a) principle encoding; (b) learning to solve problems and repairing knowledge

gaps; and (c) automation. However, explicit instruction from only the instructor is insufficient

for effective learning.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 7

As Renkl (2014) notes, the effectiveness of using worked examples for learning

depends on the learners’ own ability to elaborate and rationalise the solutions to themselves.

Students who can self-explain, either spontaneously or through prompting, were found to be

superior at solving novel problems (Hilbert & Renkl, 2009; Renkl, 1997). Furthermore,

spontaneous self-explanations may also be superior to prompted self-explanations (Hilbert &

Renkl, 2009; Schworm & Renkl, 2006). The factors that influence a students’ ability to

spontaneous self-explain are countless and frankly not clearly mapped in the current research

landscape. A dominant consideration is the balance between extraneous and intrinsic

cognitive load, which we have briefly discussed so far. This optimisation of intrinsic load is a

threshold concept that will guide all techniques discussed later.

In actual learning practice, numerous variables interact with each other, finely

modifying the cognitive load at any given time. Some of these combinations produce

predictable effects that have been defined and named. For example, the split-attention effect

describes the increase in extraneous cognitive load when a learner splits their attention

between multiple sources of information that must be integrated (Sweller, 2011). The

redundancy effect describes when elements in the learning material are unnecessary to

encode information, and extraneous load is required to process and distinguish necessary

from unnecessary information (Sweller, 2011). Sweller (2016b) notes that most cognitive

load effects, in practice, result from improper instruction creating extraneous load.

In contrast, other cognitive load effects are secondary to the optimisation of intrinsic

cognitive load. For example, the variability effect describes when intrinsic cognitive load is

enhanced through variable elements in the learning material or experience, improving

learning outcomes (Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994; Sweller, 2011). This phenomenon shares

striking similarities to the highly researched and established practice of interleaving for skills

development, which also has similar empirical findings (Taylor & Rohrer, 2010). Thus,

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 8

variability effect on cognitive load may partially explain the efficacy of interleaving.

Similarly, the generation effect occurs when learners have greater test performance by

generating their own responses rather than being given instructional guidance (Chen et al.,

2015). Where many elements are interacting with each other in the learning material,

guidance can be beneficial to help manage the high cognitive load, while it can be harmful

when working memory load is light (Sweller, 2016b). This reduction of cognitive overload

seems to disproportionately affect students with a low level of prior knowledge, while those

with higher prior knowledge are harmed by reducing intrinsic cognitive load (Ayres, 2006).

Students engaging in generative learning are exposed to confusion and discomfort inherent to

higher levels of cognitive load. Consequently, they can report a preference for non-generative

instructional guidance (King, 1992; Wittrock, 1989), although their results may be

significantly worse without generative techniques (Ritchie & Volkl, 2000; Wittrock, 2010).

This is explained by the illusion of fluency, whereby individuals tend to overstimate the

depth of their knowledge (Carey, 2015) and the belief that mastery over something has been

achieved when it has not (Lang, 2016). The Dunning-Kruger effect (Dunning, 2011) is also

likely to influence the general lack of metacognition by most students or even educators.

Of particular practical importance is the expertise reversal effect. This effect describes

the reduction or even reversal of an instructional procedure’s efficacy when the learner has a

higher level of expertise. While high element interactivity can increase intrinsic load in

novices and create superior learning outcomes, for example with worked examples, the level

of interactivity between elements reduces as an individual gains expertise, causing an effect

reduction and eventual reversal (Kalyuga et al., 2001). This effect occurs because novices

may perceive information as isolated individual elements, imposing a high cognitive load on

the working memory. On the other hand, experts can see multiple elements as a simplified,

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 9

single element, reducing working memory load. Thus, high element interactivity, which

induces a high working memory load, can be reduced by greater domain expertise.

As such, a snowball effect is hypothesised for learning, where greater domain

expertise increases the ability to process larger volumes of information. These observations

of working memory are directly mirrored and extended with research on chunking theory,

which describes a method of functionally bypassing working memory limitations through

recoding of information into larger, related units, called “chunks” (Gobet & Clarkson, 2004;

Gobet et al., 2001; Thalmann et al., 2019). Related to the expertise reversal effect and

element interactivity effect is the isolated elements effect, which states that if information

causes cognitive overload, it may need to be isolated and broken up, then reconstituted later

from individual, isolated elements (Sweller, 2016a). We will modify this sequence in a novel

way to reduce the amount of unnecessary isolation in our study system, while facilitating the

snowball effect.

The transient information effect is relevant for modern formal learning. This effect

describes the transient nature of information consumption in presentations or lectures. When

presented in written form, complex information can be recoded more carefully, and cognitive

load can be reduced to more optimum levels (Sweller, 2016a). However, this is not often in

the learner's control, and therefore students should engage in preparatory strategies to reduce

cognitive load, even without comprehensive written material being available. In our study

system, students can functionally bypass the limitations of the transient information effect by

increasing their expertise through semantic priming.

Additional Considerations for Cognitive Load Theory in Practice

There are a number of important findings to help guide the application of CLT.

Firstly, several studies have demonstrated that total cognitive load can be reliably measured

through subjective rating scales (Paas et al., 2003), with a high level of sensitivity for small

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 10

differences in cognitive load (Paas et al., 2005; Van Gog et al., 2012). Secondly, there is no

substantial evidence to suggest that working memory capacity cannot be trained, though it is

an underlying assumption behind most cognitive load research (Sweller, 2020). This

assumption seems unlikely given the research on neuroplasticity indicating that the human

brain can undergo an astonishing level of adaptation (Bruel-Jungerman et al., 2007; Sagi et

al., 2012). Finally, visual encoding appears to be less restricted than verbal encoding, with

cognitive resources required to encode remaining stable, even if the pace of information is

increased beyond optimal verbal encoding limits (Lang et al., 1999). We will leverage these

effects in our studying system.

Retrieval, Active Recall and Spacing

Retrieval practice refers to any activity requiring learners to recall previously encoded

information from their long-term memory. There is little doubt that retrieval is superior to

restudying, as demonstrated by multiple meta-analyses (Adesope et al., 2017; Rowland,

2014). Moreover, decades of research have shown that the spacing of retrieval episodes

improves knowledge retention (Latimier et al., 2021). However, the effects of spacing and the

limits of its effectiveness are far from clear. In this review, I will briefly summarise some of

the salient findings of spaced retrieval practice while emphasising the substantial limitations

when making practical recommendations on real-world effectiveness. Note that a deeper

understanding of the many potential theoretical explanations for the spacing effect does not

offer a practical advantage at this time, so this discussion will be omitted from this review.

Based on recent meta-analyses, the following statements about spaced retrieval are

empirically supported.

• Retrieval practice is more beneficial when cognitive load is higher and more

demanding during retrieval (Adesope et al., 2017).

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 11

• Gaining correct answer feedback on high-confidence correct answers can be

an inefficient use of time for students (Hays et al., 2010).

• Students’ predictions of recall performance do not correlate with actual

performance (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008).

• Receiving delayed feedback on answers may be more beneficial for long-term

memory than delayed, but only when the delayed feedback is thoroughly

examined (Butler et al., 2007). In general, receiving feedback at all only has a

slightly greater effect compared to no feedback (Adesope et al., 2017), and

retrieval seems to be beneficial, regardless of whether it was correct or not

(Carneiro et al., 2021).

• Retrieval with testing is more effective than restudying by a moderate effect

size of g = 0.51, which “is arguably the most accurate indicator of the benefits

of retrieval practice” (Adesope et al., 2017).

• Students commonly use rereading as a strategy (Karpicke et al., 2009) which

is ineffective at improving test outcomes or retention (Callender & McDaniel,

2009). However, using rereading increases students’ false sense of mastery

and overconfidence (Koriat & Bjork, 2005).

• Both adolescent and adult learners are overwhelmingly unable to identify

effective revision techniques. They are much more likely to identify easier

revision techniques as more effective (Birnbaum et al., 2013; Kornell et al.,

2010; Zulkiply & Burt, 2013), even when directly informed on which

techniques are objectively superior (Logan et al., 2012; Simon & Bjork, 2001).

• Expanding spacing intervals does not seem to clearly improve learning

outcomes compared to fixed spacing schedules (Latimier et al., 2021);

however, the research is heavily conflicted, and conclusions cannot be made.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 12

• Some studies suggest that when knowledge must be retained for longer, longer

spacing intervals may be associated with better test performance (Cepeda et

al., 2009; Greving & Richter, 2018).

• The positive effects of spacing seem to be present across age groups, domains,

knowledge levels and working memory capacities (Adesope et al., 2017;

Latimier et al., 2021).

• Retrieval seems to enhance learning new and novel information, even after

interpolated testing stops (Chan et al., 2020). This is attributed to the forward

testing effect (Chan et al., 2018; Kliegl & Bäuml, 2021).

Limitations of Current Research

Several limitations to the current state of science on spacing impose considerable

caveats to its application. Most critically, the vast majority of studies examining the effect of

spacing are laboratory-based (approximately 89%) compared to classroom-based (Adesope et

al., 2017). Classroom studies have much higher variability in study time, extrinsic motivation

and multiple interference variables (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Fewer studies still examine

the effect for students using spaced repetition techniques independent of class (Adesope et

al., 2017). As Latimier et al. (2021) remark in their meta-analysis of spaced retrieval practice,

“diversity of experimental settings (particular stimuli, test types, population) was limited,

making it impossible to fully address the moderating effects of these factors”.

This lack of evidence in real-world academic settings is relevant from a student’s

perspective, as the student is not in control of how their class is facilitated. Thus, even if

spaced testing is effective in classroom settings, this does not help a student in a class that

does not facilitate spaced testing. In addition, laboratory testing and even classroom studies

do not sufficiently account for the range of other academic pressures a student must navigate,

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 13

including the presence of multiple subjects with varied methods of instruction or time spent

on homework, which may in itself be harmful to the student (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2017).

Furthermore, most studies do not test retention after a testing retrieval episode longer

than one day, with longer time-delay studies measuring still less than one week (Adesope et

al., 2017). Studies measuring the effect of spaced retrieval across weeks in realistic

educational settings are exceedingly rare across several decades of studies (Carpenter, 2017).

The studies that have measured across longer intervals do sufficiently demonstrate some form

of long-term benefit (Bahrick et al., 1993; Bahrick & Hall, 2005; Rawson & Dunlosky,

2013), but the character of this benefit is still unclear. For example, Smith and Scarf (2017)

reviewed studies of spaced retrieval across exclusively longer time scales for language

learning. They found patterns not present in short-term data, such as the lack of benefit of

spacing to help learn words or grammar among adults. To my knowledge, no studies have

examined the effect of spaced retrieval in a setting that matches all of the following

conditions, despite these conditions being representative of reality for nearly all secondary

and tertiary students:

• adolescents or young adults;

• realistic educational settings;

• realistic assessments;

• spacing intervals across weeks;

• multiple simultaneous subjects.

In addition, although spaced retrieval is undoubtedly effective, the magnitude of this

effect may be exaggerated by popular media. The vast majority of studies compare the usage

of spaced retrieval to no spaced retrieval or non-testing study activity such as rereading

(Adesope et al., 2017). Even when spaced retrieval is shown to be significantly effective,

individual results range widely, with results for some individuals who use spaced retrieval

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 14

being lower than those who do not use it (Adesope et al., 2017). The size of beneficial effects

are mostly moderate. When publication bias or moderating factors are accounted for, there

are very few large (g ≥ 0.8) or very large effect sizes (g ≥ 1.3), even in laboratory and

controlled classroom studies. Larger effect sizes are often countered by significant

heterogeneity between studies, sometimes showing a small effect for the same outcome

(Latimier et al., 2021). Ultimately, the moderate tendency of effect sizes suggests that it is

unlikely that an individual will receive a dramatic improvement in any learning outcome

using primarily spaced retrieval. The wide variability in results has not been explained or

reconciled (Latimier et al., 2021), indicating that while spaced retrieval is effective at a

population level, moderating factors have considerable influence on individual results.

One of the most significant moderating factors may be cognitive load. However,

despite the relevance of cognitive load theory on memory, relatively few studies compare the

efficacy of spaced retrieval against working memory load. In a Chinese laboratory study of

1032 university students, C. Yang et al. (2020) demonstrated that spaced testing has the

greatest effect on those with low working memory capacity compared to those with high

working memory capacity. This finding is consistent with those of a prior study by Agarwal

et al. (2017) in a laboratory study of 166 students from Washington University. Notably, the

forward testing effect in isolation has been shown to be effective, independent of the working

memory capacity (Pastötter & Frings, 2019); however, this finding does not consider spacing.

These observations are theoretically logical as students with lower working memory capacity

encode less into their long-term memory, increasing the relative proportion of information

that would be forgotten without adequate spaced retrieval.

Conclusion

Some recommendations regarding spacing are reasonably safe to make at an

institutional level. However, the research is far from being able to extrapolate the findings

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 15

into precise recommendations for secondary and tertiary students, the majority of whom do

not have active facilitation of spaced testing during class. We may even be decades away

from having this level of research due to the exponentially increasing difficulty in controlling

for multiple interference effects in more real-world settings. Nevertheless, we can reasonably

conclude that incorporating some element of spaced retrieval is highly likely to have some

positive effect. This effect is most likely to be moderate, though it may be reduced for those

with higher working memory capacity. While potentially longer spacing intervals may benefit

test performance, specific guidelines on exact scheduling cannot be made. If a learner is

already using spaced retrieval, there is certainly no evidence basis to suggest that relying

more on spaced retrieval would have a positive real-world benefit.

In my experience, the heavy reliance on spaced repetition for learning modern

curriculum under modern assessment criteria is often associated with more isolated and

superficial processing and a tendency for rote learning. The offloading of information into

superficially processed notes or flashcards seem to reduce cognitive load during encoding

episodes. Due to the inherently repetitive nature of spaced retrieval and under the pressure of

multiple subjects and limited time, I have observed an inverted-U effect, whereby results and

mental health are negatively impacted at high levels of spaced repetition. This effect may be

unmasked only for those studying more challenging material, higher total volumes of

material, learning at a faster pace, or aiming for higher test scores. Therefore, I hypothesise

that (a) spaced retrieval is optimally effective when augmenting a studying system that

primarily optimises intrinsic cognitive load and (b) spaced retrieval has a negative effect on

test outcomes and mental health when encoding and recoding processes are below an intrinsic

load threshold.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 16

Inquiry-Based Learning

Fundamentals of Inquiry-Based Learning

First proposed over 60 years ago (Bruner, 1961), inquiry-based learning (IBL)

(previously and interchangeably called discovery learning, constructivist learning and

problem-based learning) is a method of learning based around a now outdated understanding

of cognitive architecture (Sweller, 2021). The theory centers around the premise that humans

are inherently problem-solving creatures and capitalising on the brain’s problem-solving

cognitive habits leads to superior learning outcomes. Inquiry-based learning was one of the

first non-traditional approaches to learning that disrupted the long-held pedagogoical models

that are still dominant in the education space (Khalaf, 2018). To first understand the

fundamentals of IBL, and the subsequent flaws and practical implications, we must first

understand the defining features of it compared to traditional learning.

Traditional Learning

While definitions vary, traditional learning is typically seen as having the following

characteristics.

• Divided into two stages: encoding and decoding, followed by a term

examination to evaluate student performance outcomes (Hall, 2002; Johnson,

1991).

• The teacher talks for most of the time, usually with whole class participation,

rather than individual or group activities (Rashty, 2003).

• The teaching is driven by a fixed curriculum, independent of the learner’s

gradual development of knowledge (Rashty, 2003).

• Lessons are dictated by the teacher on the underlying assumption that the

teacher knows what is best for the student (Austin et al., 2001).

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 17

Traditional learning faces criticism for encouraging superficial learning and increased

memorisation (Biggs, 1996), which creates future setbacks for students, especially for

practical science and problem-solving (Entwistle & Tait, 1995). Traditional learning is

thought to fail students in facilitating depth of knowledge mastery (Khalaf, 2018) with some

outright stating that traditional learning is no longer effective in the educational field (Kiraly,

2005). IBL is described to overcome the problems of teacher-centric models (Barrow, 2006).

Unfortunately, the implementation and outcomes of IBL are extremely varied (Khalaf, 2018)

with low consistency between studies (Rönnebeck et al., 2016). This also makes an agreed-

upon list of characteristics challenging, but the following seem to be typical core features of

IBL models.

• IBL tends to involve problem-solving or testing of a hypothesis with

evaluation of the findings (Pedaste et al., 2012; Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2006).

• Learners formulate explanations based on evidence to do with a subject and

then communicate this in some form (Dewey, 1933).

In practice, these core features are adapted in countless ways with more specific

models and frameworks. The implementation of IBL varies depending on culture, institution,

age group and domain, to name a few (Khalaf, 2018).

Problems With Inquiry-Based Learning

At present, the contructivist school of thought, favouring inquiry-based learning, and

the cognitivist school, favouring cognitive load theory, are almost mutually exclusive.

Sweller (2021) directly states that “based on both theory and data, there is little justification

for the current emphasis on inquiry learning”, in an executive summary titled “Why Inquiry-

Based Approaches Harm Students’ Learning”. Although various studies have demonstrated

improvements in student motivation, depth of learning and student engagement through using

IBL (Khalaf, 2018), these results are often inconsistent and conflicted. To date, a clear benefit

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 18

of IBL has not been empirically demonstrated (Sweller, 2021), despite gaining widespread

popularity and adoption (Sundberg et al., 2005). However, the vast majority of studies

investigating IBL are focused on institutional implementation.

There are many documented barriers for institutional implementation of IBL. Some of

the most significant and prevalent barriers revolve around the extensive level of teacher

training to implement IBL with any success (Dorier & Maab, 2012), causing considerable

variability depending on the teacher or facilitator. For example, in a recent meta-analysis,

IBL approaches were found to improve motivation and engagement for science teaching, but

the need for strong teacher training was noted as a major factor (Areepattamannil et al.,

2020). Though these barriers are largely still present and methods of consistently overcoming

them have not been reported, this review is focused on non-institutional, individual

implications of research. The following are limitations of IBL that have been suggested that

may impact an individual student attempting to independently apply IBL into their own

practice.

• Students may lack sufficient intrinsic motivation to engage in correct IBL

processes (Krajcik et al., 1994). This has been predominantly reported for

middle school aged students.

• Students may lack the skills to properly engage in IBL, either in investigating

problems sufficiently or synthesising appropriate discussions or explanations

(Edelson et al., 1999; Krajcik et al., 1998).

Consilient Hypothesis

Inquiry-based learning faces significant challenges to its theoretical and empirical

basis. While traditional learning is certainly antiquated, IBL does not seem to be a strongly

evidence-based direction forward at this time. However almost all of the criticism for IBL is

from its institutional applications. Constantinou et al. (2018) remarks that IBL approaches

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 19

have been misconstrued as narrowly a framework for teaching, instead of the broader

encouragement of learner engagement through observation, analysis and problem-solving.

We hypothesise that elements of IBL can be used to facilitate optimal intrinsic cognitive load

for students through our studying system. Our preliminary results show great promise to this

bridging approach.

Impact of Notetaking Strategies

Primarily, notetaking is seen as serving two benefits (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). Firstly,

they serve as a storage of information for future reference. Secondly, notetaking induces

various levels of deeper processing and knowledge encoding (Kiewra, 1989). It has been

empirically demonstrated that variations in notetaking style and technique, including

longhand vs typed forms, significantly influence the level of encoding and prominence of

undesirable adverse effects (Peper & Mayer, 1978; Peters, 1972). The same techniques can

also vary in effect between individuals and conditions (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014;

Peverly et al., 2007).

How Notetaking Affects Performance

Many students are told by their teachers and lecturers to take notes during class.

However, the method of notetaking and the cognitive process that occurs before the pen

touches paper or the keyboard is pressed can have dramatic effects.

A classic study by Peters (1972) found that notetaking during lectures was correlated

with worse test performance. Whether the information was presented in written form, spoken

slowly, or spoken quickly did not change the overall negative effect of notetaking on test

scores. A later study by Peper and Mayer (1978) found the opposite, whereby notetaking was

correlated to higher test performance regardless of presented modality. Furthermore, a

positive effect of notetaking was demonstrated by Schoen (2012), with laptop typed

notetaking being the superior form. Notably, each of these studies had low sample sizes, low

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 20

statistical power, and the chance of an interference effect, as noted in an integrative review of

notetaking by Jansen et al. (2017).

Individual differences also have significant effects on notetaking. Students receive a

greater benefit from notetaking when their cognitive ability and working memory scores are

higher (Berliner, 1971; Kiewra & Benton, 1988; Kiewra et al., 1987; Peverly et al., 2007),

with those at lower levels of performance potentially not benefiting at all (Berliner, 1971;

Peper & Mayer, 1978). Research on the effect of individual variance regarding the ability to

tolerate high cognitive load and create mental models has not been sufficiently studied.

However, existing evidence suggests a significant influence of these on the success of

notetaking (Bui & McDaniel, 2015). In other words, notetaking skills used by top students

may be ineffective for other students who lack the fundamental cognitive processes to benefit

from them. In these cases, it is reasonable to suggest that these fundamental processes should

be trained first.

Typed vs Longhand Notetaking

Studies on notetaking for informationally complex topics, such as lectures, where the

student is exposed to a high rate of information transfer, show that typed notetaking is

superior to longhand notetaking for short-term memory (Bui et al., 2013; Schoen, 2012).

Presumably, this is due to typing being faster than longhand notetaking. However, this

conclusion is not so straightforward. Famously, Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) found

longhand notetaking to be superior to typed notetaking. An extension of this study by

Morehead et al. (2019) concluded that there was no significant difference between longhand

or typed notetaking on memory performance for both short- and long-term. Further still, a

systematic review by H. H. Yang et al. (2020) on the effect of digital notetaking in the

classroom found insufficient evidence on the superiority of digital or longhand notetaking

with several theories and frameworks to support either modality. The authors identified a

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 21

range of economic, software and hardware limitations to digital notetaking and a distinct lack

of empirical studies to show superiority of one form over another. Presently, the question of

which form of notetaking is superior remains unanswered. However, many seemingly

contradictory findings can potentially be reconciled by considering cognitive load as a

significant influencer on encoding and memory, which will be discussed later.

Structuring Notes

Some students believe that writing lots of notes is superior to writing fewer notes.

This advice is anecdotally echoed by teachers, with some teachers even enforcing students to

write copious notes during and after class. Unfortunately, this indiscriminate advice is more

likely to be detrimental than beneficial.

While some studies show that transcribed, verbatim-style notetaking is superior to

structured and more processed notetaking for short-term memory, this effect is reversed with

delayed testing (Bui et al., 2013). Similarly, most other studies have found that structured

notes with clear outlines and greater organisation are superior (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979;

Bui & McDaniel, 2015; Kauffman et al., 2011; Peverly et al., 2013). This effect seemed to

vary in differing modalities of information delivery (spoken vs written), type of organisation

and outline, and content difficulty. The effect on memory may be diminished or disappear

entirely when students have more time to revise their notes (Katayama & Robinson, 2000).

Ultimately, empirical research has not thoroughly examined the effect of different

types of structures, quality of structures, learning modalities, and content difficulties. Thus,

the current state of evidence is far from sufficient to conclude superiority.

Note Content

In the systematic review by Jansen et al. (2017), higher note quality was significantly

correlated with higher knowledge retention and test performance. Conversely, verbatim notes

were correlated with lower retention due to reduced processing and encoding of information.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 22

Controversially, due to the nature of measuring note quality, most studies use

potentially inaccurate proxy measures of note quality, such as the number of factual

statements in a set of notes. Confounding effects such as usage of non-verbal notetaking

techniques and spatial arrangement is not accounted for, nor is there much consideration of

multiple intervention interference effects. Research on the impact that content of notes

relative to other processes that occur in the studying system, such as prior knowledge, level

of semantic priming, or usage of information beyond immediate recall have not been

sufficiently evaluated. It should be particularly noted that the superior level of recall found

when information was included in notes was consistently around 40 to 50% (Aiken et al.,

1975; Einstein et al., 1985; Peper & Mayer, 1986), which is much higher than the 6 to 12%

found with information that was not included in notes, but still indicating a considerable

degree of knowledge decay. The effect of notetaking techniques on knowledge decay in its

ability to improve encoding has previously been shown; however, there are no established

techniques or guidelines on how to write notes to reduce the rate of forgetting. Hypotheses

based on existing empirical findings are discussed later.

Importantly, there is a general lack of modern studies examining the effect of note

content and quality on retention. The absence of more recent studies is likely to be important

given the considerable shift in curriculums, assessment styles and student climates over the

last 40 years (Schleicher, 2018), with some indication that current assessments can even be

harmful for students (Mayes & Howell, 2018).

A Unifying Theory

So far, the evidence on notetaking is sparse, empirically lacking, often contradictory,

seemingly highly susceptible to interference effects and in many cases, simply outdated or

statistically underpowered. Naturally, this makes it difficult to form a clear picture.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 23

Impressively, many of these findings can be unified with cognitive load theory (Plass

et al., 2010). To an extent, individuals who can handle higher levels of cognitive load can

encode more and therefore improve their memory and subsequent test performance, while

supra-optimal cognitive load causes performance to suffer. As Jansen et al. (2017) state, by

analysing the cognitive load capacity of an individual as well as the level of cognitive load

induced by a task, “we can make more fine-grained predictions about when notetaking

improves performance on memory tests”.

Current evidence strongly supports this with similar conclusions across an enormous

range of studies in the domain of cognitive load theory (Hilbert & Renkl, 2009; Olive &

Barbier, 2017; Renkl, 2014; Svinicki, 2017; Sweller, 2016b). One interesting study by

Casteleyn et al. (2013) investigated the effect of graphics and multimedia in presentations on

learning outcomes. Across 155 university students, usage of multimedia in teaching

presentations and learning material did not create a significant difference in cognitive load or

actual knowledge gain. Notably, participants subjectively preferred presentations with more

graphics though it had no objective impact. This observation mirrors the illusion of fluency

previously discussed in that student preferences are not an accurate predictor of actual

efficacy. It also supports the theory that encoding and the facilitation of cognitive load are not

easy to measure or control externally if the student lacks the independent skill to engage in

the proper encoding processes.

Interestingly, Jansen et al. (2017) identify five types of cognitive load that is induced

by notetaking:

1. Comprehending the lecture material

2. Identifying key points

3. Linking the material to prior knowledge and prior notes

4. Paraphrasing or summarising

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 24

5. Transforming to written form

Given the inconclusive state of note quality and nuances of note structuring, I would

note that to allow these five types the highest chance for accuracy, “written form” should be

interpreted broadly as the documentation of ideas, which may not be limited to verbal

expression.

In summary, Jansen et al. (2017) posit that notetaking that creates sufficient, tolerable

cognitive load, while preventing cognitive overload produces the highest level of

performance. This cleanly explains many of the discrepancies in findings from empirical

studies so far. However, validating this hypothesis is incredibly challenging due to the

difficulty of directly measuring cognitive load, analysing individual tolerances for cognitive

load, and the effect of different test types, test timings, and complexity of manipulation

(simple fact recall vs synthesis or evaluative manipulation of knowledge).

A Potential Technique

Based on the available evidence, the best method of notetaking depends on the desired

outcome. Techniques for students with a high tolerance for cognitive load would be vastly

different to a student whose cognitive load capacity must be trained and extended.

Objectives

As our goal is to allow as many students as possible to study to a level of efficiency,

the following objectives should be set:

• Increase a student’s capacity for cognitive load

• Improve a student’s ability to self-regulate cognitive load for techniques

• Equip the student with a technique that creates an optimum level of cognitive load

Attributes

Furthermore, to be as empirically supported as possible, the technique should

prioritise the following attributes:

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 25

• A high level of clear organisation and processing

• Time-efficiency for use in varying rates of information transfer (e.g. fast lectures vs

written sources)

• Preferably leveraging the benefits and convenience of digital notetaking while

mitigating the distractions and potential for reducing cognitive load below optimum.

To my knowledge, there is no notetaking system that has been designed and

subsequently instructed with all of these considerations optimised.

Synthesis and Proposed System

So far, we have examined the nature of human memory with emphasis on human

cognitive architecture and the role of cognitive load theory; the benefits and limitations of

spaced retrieval practice; the current state of science regarding inquiry-based learning; and

the relationship between notetaking and cognitive load. In this section, we will bridge these

domains together into a single studying system that leverages off the strengths of each, while

mitigating their limitations. We describe a novel and precise combination of theories and

frameworks, a brief history of the system’s development, and preliminary findings on

effectiveness.

Our studying system is named the Bear Hunter System (BHS) in reference to the

evolutionary theory of human cognition which is shared in fundamental principle between

IBL and CLT. The system is divided into discrete steps with each step designed to facilitate a

specific series of cognitive processes. Students are introduced to each subsequent step

progressively, once sufficient mastery has been obtained for the prior step. Though the stages

of learner development loosely follow the previously mentioned stages of skills acquisition

set by VanLehn (1996), to my knowledge, there is no current system that consistently

navigates secondary or tertiary students through these stages in real-world settings, nor any

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 26

system for any group that incorporates IBL principles, chunking, best-practice notetaking and

intrinsic cognitive load optimisation.

By following these steps, the students engage in the following sequence of activities.

1. Identification of key words and terminology for the topic to be studied.

2. Usage of inquiry to drive spontaneous self-explanations that lead towards the

formation of main chunks. The focus of inquiry is split between (a) evaluating

the relationship between concepts and (b) questions examining the functional

or conceptual importance of a concept. We refer to this process of inquiry

which is restricted to a select few generic questions as “restricted inquiry”.

3. Usage of the same restricted inquiry processes to clearly identify relationships

between concepts and chunks, with evaluation of relationships to assign strict

relative priority.

4. Non-linear representation of these ideas and relationships using visualisation

such as doodles to supplement verbal expression where appropriate.

5. Repeating of restricted inquiry with separation of isolated elements into

separate methods for spaced retrieval or rote-memorisation.

The core features of the BHS involve all of the following:

• The usage of restricted inquiry to identify commonalities between concepts,

resulting in chunks;

• Strict prioritisation of relationships using restricted inquiry;

• Multi-staged development of knowledge while learning material, based on the

gradual development of domain-specific cognitive schemas;

• Subsequent representation of this schema through non-linear notetaking.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 27

Theoretical Basis for the Bear Hunter System

The BHS promotes non-linear, recursive encoding of information with constant

application of restricted inquiry. The sequential activation of clear steps (not outlined in full

in this document) breaks up the process into meaningful subgoals. This improves the

likelihood that the solution can be applied correctly in novel contexts, without learners being

confused by the correct procedure for solving or encoding information (Renkl, 2014). Split-

attention effect is reduced through the collection of key words and concepts into a single

source via a defined step with low working memory load requirements. Restricted inquiry

reduce redundancy effects and leverages the environmental organising and linking principle,

while following this with chunking and non-linear notetaking facilitates generative learning

and spontaneous self-explanations.

Information is learned in the order that is deemed most relevant by the student, based

on their self-perceived areas of greatest curiosity which is informed by the schema that was

created in the aim step. Though information is sometimes learned out of order in relation to

the material, we argue that the information is learned in the correct order when viewed in

relation to what is most likely to be effectively encoded at any given time. The hypothesis is

that cognitive overload can be prevented by minimising element interactivity and

unnecessary elements through self-identifying material that feels the most necessary, based

on a basic means-end strategy whereby the answers to restricted inquiry are set as the goal

outcome. The non-linear encoding of information creates a naturally multi-stage development

of knowledge that is deeply processed, while the usage of restricted inquiry facilitates

generative learning and activating of the forward testing effect with spaced retrieval between

each stage of development.

Based on the expertise reversal effect, high element interactivity, which induces a

high working memory load, can be reduced by greater domain expertise. Following the BHS

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 28

procedure, domain expertise is increased through a path of least resistance, aligning with the

narrow limits of change principle. As the restricted inquiry process constantly aims to create

simplified chunks, we hypothesise that working memory limitations during encoding can be

functionally overcome through frequent cycles of encoding and retrieval, leveraging off the

ability to mobilise vast volumes of information to facilitate the encoding of novel information

in a positive feedback cycle. We also hypothesise that this reduces the quantity of isolated

elements which need to be memorised by rote, which can subsequently create unnecessary

additional revision time during future spaced repetitions.

To my knowledge, the following aspects are novel:

• The usage of a restricted inquiry process to create chunks, which functionally

bypasses working memory limits;

• Increase in intrinsic cognitive load and facilitation of explicit spontaneous

self-explanation using restricted inquiry processes;

• Prevention of cognitive overload through reduction of unnecessary or isolated

elements via learner-led, multi-staged, non-linear knowledge development;

• Non-linear mindmap-style notetaking primarily focused on the visual

prioritisation of relationships between chunks formed through restricted

inquiry.

Results From Trials

Coaching the ability for self-explanations has been found to be somewhat effective,

though not explored through comprehensive, multi-factor programs (Bielaczyc et al., 1995;

Stark et al., 2002). When looking at transferability across domains, current evidence has not

found that teaching cognitive-generic skills improve performance in far transfer domains

(Ritchie et al., 2015; Sweller, 2016a; Tricot & Sweller, 2014). Due to this current lack of

evidence for the benefit of cognitive-generic skills in far transfer performance, Sweller

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 29

(2020) notes that “we need to look elsewhere for effective instructional procedures”. When

students are supported to interrelate multiple different information sources, outcomes are

better, though it is not yet known what procedure is best to support this (Renkl, 2014).

Therefore, the effective results from our BHS are novel.

We taught the BHS to 797 students from predominantly Australian secondary schools

between December 2020 to October 2021 through the iCanStudy™ online membership,

involving online courses, group coaching through video call for two hours per month, brief

feedback on work every month (seven minutes on average per student per month), and

uncounted engagement points through an online Discord Community.

A baseline data survey was introduced after approximately the first 6 months. Results

were recorded from 364 students on the iCanStudy course. Of these, 70.3% had used active

recall and 60.9% had used spaced repetition, while only 8.0% had attempted to use cognitive

load theory. The quality of execution before joining the course was not assessed, however it

is reasonable to predict a very high level of procedural variation. The average self-reported

studying efficiency was 43.3% with a median of 45% , and 59.3% reported moderate to

significant procrastination. The average hours spent studying per week, excluding school

time, was 24.1 hours with a median of 21 hours. The average self-reported retention after one

week was 51.2% with a median of 50%. Fifty-seven percent of students typically received

test scores of 85% or lower, while 17.6% typically received above 95%. The following table

shows the results taken at intermittent checkpoints throughout the course. Note that this data

is taken at each group in a between-groups analysis, rather than within-subject analysis.

Unfortunately, due to a technical incident, some early course data of approximately 400

students was deleted which has not yet been recovered.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 30

Stage (estimated weeks on course) [Number of

respondents]

Technique Basecamp (24 Camp Two

Training (4 to to 35) [76] (42 to 50) [40]
8) [251]

Students rating “somewhat less”, 77.3% 97.3% 100%

“significantly less” or “minimal”
procrastination

Average self-reported retention 70.7% 84.9% 86.9%

after one week

Self-reported improvement in 66.5% 96.1% 97.5%

efficiency of at least 30%

Self-reported improvement in 27.9% 90.8% 90.0%

efficiency of at least double

Students who sat a recent 60.9% 71.2% 90%

assessment who received over 90%

Students who feel “significantly 45.8% 71.1% 70%

more” confident about achieving
their academic goals
Table 1: Progression of student metrics throughout the course

As the results show, there is a consistent improvement in procrastination, efficiency,

test results and academic confidence. It should be remembered that students tend to

overestimate their actual retention (Koriat & Bjork, 2005), however as all results are also

self-reported, we can consider any relative change to be equally biased. In reality, improved

metacognition while progressing through the course may reduce overestimation, however,

this has not been verified.

Future plans

“Learning” is a complex cognitive phenomenon whereby sensory information is

stored in our memory in such a way that this information can be retrieved, manipulated and

applied. Although advancements in educational research in the last few decades have

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 31

significantly elucidated how learning occurs, much of the research remains fragmented or

isolated. Furthermore, much of the research does not take into consideration the pragmatic

variables such as limited time available for learners or depth of knowledge mastery achieved

by learning strategies.

However, there are several key challenges in consolidating and unifying the current

isolated findings across learning strategies. Findings often do not measure against a

standardised or empirically validated metric. The variation and contestability of outcome

measures make meta-analyses and systematic reviews difficult to conduct or interpret. The

generalisability of findings is limited to the scope of the metrics and strict, often lab-based

and unrealistic, parameters of the study. Despite constant research on the contextual

effectiveness of isolated learning strategies, we are facing diminishing returns on our ability

to answer the pragmatic question of “which learning strategies are most efficient for a learner

to achieve their learning goals?”

Due to a lack of existing research focus on time efficiency and level of knowledge

mastery to research, as well no presently validated standardised metric for meta-analyses and

comparative reviews, we will be conducting our own research on this field to help bridge the

research-practice gap. We expect a series of publications between 2022 and 2025 addressing

these issues, facilitated by Monash University. By producing such research, not only can

individual learners be empowered to accurately assess their own learning strategies, but

educators and researchers will be able to compare different techniques and strategies against

each other

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 32

History of Technique Development

• In 2011 and 2012, I relied heavily on spaced retrieval and flashcards. The

literature on effective learning was superficially reviewed and I began tutoring

students independently.

• In 2013, I completed a certification in teritary teaching and learning, exposing

me to the ideas of metacognition and threshold concepts. These ideas intrigued

me as they offered perspectives on learning that I had previously not

prioritised or strongly considered.

• Following this, I read more on the literature of threshold concepts and began

to apply them to my own practice. During this time, I started noticing the

issues with spaced repetition dependent studying techniques among my

students. Combined with my stronger understanding of threshold concepts, I

investigated methods to allow students to uncover threshold concepts more

easily and quickly.

• In 2015 I had delved into the ideas of encoding and retrieval and the cognitive

architectural basis for memory. Some basic techniques were derived to try to

facilitate this, however effect was not consistent and coaching was very time-

consuming and intensive. By the end of 2015, the idea of using inquiry-based

learning to induce cognitive load was hypothesised.

• By 2017, with more experience working with students and experimenting on

my own studies, some guidelines for chunking and how inquiry-based

principles, not formally described in the literature, could be combined. By this

point, component techniques had been taught to and evaluated across

approximately 500 students.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 33

• In 2018, I developed a “seek-and-receive” technique centred around inquiry-

based chunking to optimise cognitive load. By the end of 2018, the problems

of cognitive overload, intrinsic motivation of students and far transfer of skills

was clearly apparent. At this point, the overwhelming majority of students

were unable to master this skill to a level of superiority above their

conventional techniques. By the end of 2018, approximately 250 additional

students were evaluated on the seek-and-receive technique.

• By 2019, some of the nuanced effects of cognitive load were considered, as

well as creating restrictions on inquiry. Stricter guidelines on chunking were

developed to more explicitly instruct students on the correct procedure.

Though this helped, still the results were inconsistent and many of my students

were unable to master the technique. By the end of 2019, approximately 1,500

additional students were taught variations of the component techniques with

results evaluated.

• In early 2020, I introduced the multi-stage progression and consolidating

numerous separate techniques that I had been teaching, including the concept

of non-linear learning based on inquiry. Guidelines on restricted inquiry were

made stricter and the technique was reframed with chunking and relational

processing as a priority. The technique was then tiered with progressions. This

form of technique was far more consistent with most students able to achieve

superior outcomes with intensive coaching. By mid-2020, approximately 500

additional students had been evaluated with the now consolidated technique

with acceptably consistent results.

• In mid-2020, an online course for this new set of techniques was created. The

majority of students who did not have the intrinsic motivation for an online

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 34

course were unable to master the technique, though results through coaching

were now consistently high. Approximately 400 students went through this

early stage course.

• In late 2020, iCanStudy™ was founded and a fully blended learning

experience was designed to be a balance of coaching and online courses.

Results from students were highly predictable and consistent. At this point, the

decision was made for scalable commercialisation without the need for

significant changes to the core techniques. Results from the first 700 students

were evaluated with high levels of consistency in achieving results.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 35

References

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A
meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701.

Agarwal, P. K., Finley, J. R., Rose, N. S., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2017, Jul). Benefits from
retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity.
Memory, 25(6), 764-771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579

Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: effects of
notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of educational psychology,
67(3), 439.

Areepattamannil, S., Cairns, D., & Dickson, M. (2020, 2020/08/17). Teacher-Directed Versus
Inquiry-Based Science Instruction: Investigating Links to Adolescent Students’
Science Dispositions Across 66 Countries. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
31(6), 675-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1753309

Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Rosso, J. (2001). How people learn: Introduction to learning
theories. The learning classroom: Theory into practice–a telecourse for teacher
education and professional development.

Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical

domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287-298.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1245

Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of
foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological science, 4(5), 316-
321.

Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term
retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and
Language, 52(4), 566-577.

Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.

Bartlett, F. C., & Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A study in experimental and social
psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Berliner, D. C. (1971). Aptitude-Treatment Interactions in Two Studies of Learning from

Lecture Instruction.

Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-
regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on
problem solving. Cognition and instruction, 13(2), 221-252.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education,

32(3), 347-364.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 36

Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving
enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory &
cognition, 41(3), 392-402.

Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145-153.

Bruel-Jungerman, E., Davis, S., & Laroche, S. (2007). Brain plasticity mechanisms and
memory: a party of four. The Neuroscientist, 13(5), 492-505.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.

Bui, D. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Enhancing learning during lecture note-taking using
outlines and illustrative diagrams. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 4(2), 129-135.

Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring
alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of educational psychology, 105(2),
299.

Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., 3rd. (2007, Dec). The effect of type and
timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. J Exp Psychol Appl, 13(4),
273-281. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.13.4.273

Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009, 2009/01/01/). The limited benefits of rereading
educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001

Carey, B. (2015). How we learn: The surprising truth about when, where, and why it
happens. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Carneiro, P., Lapa, A., & Finn, B. (2021). Memory updating after retrieval: when new
information is false or correct. Memory, 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1968438

Carpenter, S. K. (2017). 2.26 - Spacing Effects on Learning and Memory☆. In J. H. Byrne

(Ed.), Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference (Second Edition) (pp. 465-
485). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21054-7

Casteleyn, J., Mottart, A., & Valcke, M. (2013, 2013/10/01). The impact of graphic
organisers on learning from presentations. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
22(3), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.784621

Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2009).
Optimizing Distributed Practice. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 236-246.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236

Chan, J. C. K., Manley, K. D., & Ahn, D. (2020, 2020/12/01/). Does retrieval potentiate new
learning when retrieval stops but new learning continues? Journal of Memory and
Language, 115, 104150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104150

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 37

Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018). Retrieval potentiates new learning: A
theoretical and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(11), 1111-1146.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000166

Chen, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). The worked example effect, the generation
effect, and element interactivity. Journal of educational psychology, 107(3), 689.

Chiesi, H. L., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information
in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of verbal learning and verbal
behavior, 18(3), 257-273.

Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What Is Inquiry-Based

Science Teaching and Learning? In O. E. Tsivitanidou, P. Gray, E. Rybska, L. Louca,
& C. P. Constantinou (Eds.), Professional Development for Inquiry-Based Science
Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-23). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1

Dewey, J. (1933). A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.
DC Heath.

Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of educational
psychology, 63(1), 8.

Dorier, J., & Maab, K. (2012). The PRIMAS Project: Promoting inquiry-based learning (IBL)
in mathematics and science education across Europe PRIMAS context analysis for the
implementation of IBL: International Synthesis Report PRIMAS–Promoting Inquiry-
Based Learning in Mathemati (Vol. 1). Lokaliseret på: www. primasproject.
eu/servlet/supportBinaryFiles.

Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance.
In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247-296). Elsevier.

Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-
based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.

Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory &
cognition, 7(2), 149-158.

Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and
memory for lecture information. Journal of educational psychology, 77(5), 522.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1995). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning
environment across disciplines. New directions for teaching and learning, 1995(64),
93-103.

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.
American psychologist, 49(8), 725.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 38

Fernández-Alonso, R., Álvarez-Díaz, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2017, 2017-
March-07). Students' Achievement and Homework Assignment Strategies [Original
Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(286). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286

Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational

Psychologist, 43(4), 179-195.

Geary, D. C., & Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind. Educating the evolved
mind, 1-99.

Gobet, F., & Clarkson, G. (2004, 2004/11/01). Chunks in expert memory: Evidence for the
magical number four … or is it two? Memory, 12(6), 732-747.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000530

Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C. H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M.
(2001, 2001/06/01/). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 5(6), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01662-4

Greving, S., & Richter, T. (2018, 2018-December-04). Examining the Testing Effect in
University Teaching: Retrievability and Question Format Matter [Original Research].
Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2412). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02412

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction.

http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html

Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010, 2010/12/01). The costs and benefits of
providing feedback during learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 797-801.
https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.797

Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping
tool: Self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 267-274.

Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2017, 2017/11/01/). An integrative review of
the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 22,
223-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001

Jeffries, R., Turner, A. A., Polson, P. G., & Atwood, M. E. (1981). The processes involved in
designing software. Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 255, 283.

Johnson, D. W. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional

Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1991. ERIC.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is
superior to studying worked examples. Journal of educational psychology, 93(3), 579.

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger Iii, H. L. (2009, 2009/04/01). Metacognitive
strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their
own? Memory, 17(4), 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 39

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning.
Science, 319(5865), 966-968. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1152408

Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-
taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119-
133.

Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y.-S. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and
self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance
self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 313-322.

Khalaf, B. K. (2018). Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic

Critical Review. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 545-564.

Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond.

Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147-172.

Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing

ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(1), 33-44.

Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and
their relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14(3), 110.

King, A. (1992). Comparison of Self-Questioning, Summarizing, and Notetaking-Review as

Strategies for Learning from Lectures. American educational research journal, 29(2),
303-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163370

Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: journal des
traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 50(4), 1098-1111.

Kliegl, O., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2021, 2021/10/01/). When retrieval practice promotes new
learning – The critical role of study material. Journal of Memory and Language, 120,
104253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104253

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. FT press.

Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005, Mar). Illusions of competence in monitoring one's
knowledge during study. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 31(2), 187-194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187

Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both
memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and aging, 25(2), 498.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998).
Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school
students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 40

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model
for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The
elementary school journal, 94(5), 483-497.

Lang, A., Potter, R. F., & Bolls, P. D. (1999, 1999/06/01). Something for Nothing: Is Visual
Encoding Automatic? Media Psychology, 1(2), 145-163.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0102_4

Lang, J. M. (2016). Small changes in teaching: The last 5 minutes of class. The chronicle of
higher education.

Latimier, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2021, 2021/09/01). A Meta-Analytic Review of the
Benefit of Spacing out Retrieval Practice Episodes on Retention. Educational
Psychology Review, 33(3), 959-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09572-8

Logan, J. M., Castel, A. D., Haber, S., & Viehman, E. J. (2012). Metacognition and the
spacing effect: the role of repetition, feedback, and instruction on judgments of
learning for massed and spaced rehearsal. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 175-
195.

Mayes, E., & Howell, A. (2018, 2018/10/03). The (hidden) injuries of NAPLAN: two
standardised test events and the making of ‘at risk’ student subjects. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(10), 1108-1123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1415383

Meinz, E. J., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). Deliberate practice is necessary but not sufficient to
explain individual differences in piano sight-reading skill: The role of working
memory capacity. Psychological science, 21(7), 914-919.

Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019, 2019/09/01). How Much Mightier Is
the Pen than the Keyboard for Note-Taking? A Replication and Extension of Mueller
and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 753-780.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09468-2

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard:
Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159-
1168.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104). Prentice-hall
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Olive, T., & Barbier, M.-L. (2017). Processing time and cognitive effort of longhand note
taking when reading and summarizing a structured or linear text. Written
Communication, 34(2), 224-246.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. (2005, 09/01). A motivational
perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing
learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504795

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 41

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003, 2003/03/01).
Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8

Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of
geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of
educational psychology, 86(1), 122.

Pastötter, B., & Frings, C. (2019). The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of
Learners' Working Memory Capacity. Journal of cognition, 2(1), 37-37.
https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, S. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills
through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition
and Learning, 9(1-2), 81-95.

Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Developing an effective support system for inquiry
learning in a web‐based environment. Journal of computer assisted learning, 22(1),
47-62.

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of
educational psychology, 70(4), 514.

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures.
Journal of educational psychology, 78(1), 34.

Peters, D. L. (1972). Effects of note taking and rate of presentation on short-term objective
test performance. Journal of educational psychology, 63(3), 276.

Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007).
What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of educational psychology, 99(1),
167.

Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., &
Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory,
language comprehension and outlines to lecture note‐taking and test‐taking among
college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 115-126.

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory.

Rashty, D. (2003). Traditional learning vs. elearning. Retrieved May, 10, 2011.

Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Relearning attenuates the benefits and costs of
spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1113.

Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences.

Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1-29.

Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an Instructionally Oriented Theory of Example-Based Learning.

Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 42

Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of Two Generative Learning Strategies in the
Science Classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17240.x

Ritchie, S. J., Bates, T. C., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Is education associated with improvements
in general cognitive ability, or in specific skills? Developmental psychology, 51(5),
573.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006, 2006/09/01). The Power of Testing Memory: Basic
Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(3), 181-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016, 2016/07/02). Searching for a common
ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities.
Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161-197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic

review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432.

Sagi, Y., Tavor, I., Hofstetter, S., Tzur-Moryosef, S., Blumenfeld-Katzir, T., & Assaf, Y.
(2012, 2012/03/22/). Learning in the Fast Lane: New Insights into Neuroplasticity.
Neuron, 73(6), 1195-1203.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.01.025

Schleicher, A. (2018, 2018/03/01). Educating Learners for Their Future, Not Our Past. ECNU
Review of Education, 1(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.30926/ecnuroe2018010104

Schoen, I. (2012). Effects of method and context of note-taking on memory: handwriting

versus typing in lecture and textbook-reading contexts.

Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006, 2006/05/01/). Computer-supported example-based learning:

When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education,
46(4), 426-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011

Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 907.

Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive
Psychology, 5(1), 29-46.

Smith, C. D., & Scarf, D. (2017). Spacing Repetitions Over Long Timescales: A Review and
a Reconsolidation Explanation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 962-962.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00962

Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example
elaboration. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 39-60.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 43

Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of
introductory biology laboratory education in US colleges & universities. The
American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 525-529.

Svinicki, M. (2017). Supporting the Cognitive Skills Behind Note‐Taking (1057-2880). (The
National Teaching & Learning Forum, Issue.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55,
pp. 37-76). Elsevier.

Sweller, J. (2016a). Cognitive Load Theory, Evolutionary Educational Psychology, and

Instructional Design. In D. C. Geary & D. B. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives
on Child Development and Education (pp. 291-306). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_12

Sweller, J. (2016b, 2016/12/01/). Working Memory, Long-term Memory, and Instructional

Design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 360-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.002

Sweller, J. (2020, 2020/02/01). Cognitive load theory and educational technology.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

Sweller, J. (2021). Why Inquiry-based Approaches Harm Students’ Learning. The Centre For
Independent Studies. https://www.cis.org.au/publications/analysis-papers/why-
inquiry-based-approaches-harm-students-learning/

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem
solving in learning algebra. Cognition and instruction, 2(1), 59-89.

Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24(6), 837-848.

Thalmann, M., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2019, Jan). How does chunking help working
memory? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 45(1), 37-55.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000578

Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills
does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 265-283.

Van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental
effort measurement: Evidence in favour of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 26(6), 833-839.

VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual review of psychology, 47(1), 513-
539.

Wittrock, M. C. (1989, 1989/09/01). Generative Processes of Comprehension. Educational

Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.

STUDENT LEARNING RESEARCH SYNTHESIS 44

Wittrock, M. C. (2010, 2010/01/21). Learning as a Generative Process. Educational

Psychologist, 45(1), 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433554

Yang, C., Sun, B., Potts, R., Yu, R., Luo, L., & Shanks, D. (2020, 06/04). Do working
memory capacity and test anxiety modulate the beneficial effects of testing on new
learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000278

Yang, H. H., Shi, Y., Yang, H., & Pu, Q. (2020). The Impacts of Digital Note-Taking on
Classroom Instruction: A Literature Review (978-981-33-4594-2). L.-K. Lee, L. H. U,
F. L. Wang, S. K. S. Cheung, O. Au, & K. C. Li.

Youssef-Shalala, A., Ayres, P., Schubert, C., & Sweller, J. (2014). Using a general problem-
solving strategy to promote transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
20(3), 215.

Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning:
Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & cognition, 41(1),
16-27.

Copyright © 2022, iCanStudy Pty Limited. Produced by Dr Justin Sung.