Chapter 5 Further Reading: What Makes Learning Stick

The Foundation Documents

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. The single most important paper for this chapter. Dunlosky and colleagues evaluated ten common learning techniques and rated each for utility based on evidence quality and breadth. If you read one academic paper as a follow-up to Chapter 5, this is it. Accessible, well-organized, and directly actionable. Available free online.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. The landmark study on the testing effect described in this chapter. The design is elegant and the results are striking. Readable for a general audience.

On Retrieval Practice

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Harvard University Press. The most accessible book-length treatment of retrieval practice, spacing, and interleaving for a general audience. Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel synthesize the research into engaging narrative, with extensive case studies and practical application. Essential reading. If you read one book from this chapter's further reading list, make it this one.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. This paper compared retrieval practice against a popular active learning strategy (concept mapping) and found retrieval practice substantially superior. Useful for those who are skeptical that simple self-testing could beat more elaborate study strategies.

On Spacing and Distributed Practice

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. The comprehensive meta-analysis on the spacing effect. Synthesizes decades of research on spacing. Technical in places but the conclusions are clear.

Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317. A more recent study specifically on flashcard-based learning that directly compares spacing to massing with college students. Particularly relevant for those planning to use flashcard systems (like Anki) as their primary learning tool.

On Interleaving

Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498. The mathematics interleaving study referenced in this chapter. Clear design, substantial effect. Readable and directly applicable to anyone learning mathematics or any other domain with distinct problem types.

Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848. A follow-up that demonstrates interleaving effects across multiple domains and extends the findings from mathematics to other content areas.

On Desirable Difficulties

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press. The original formulation of "desirable difficulties" by Robert Bjork. More technical than the popular treatments but worth reading to understand the full framework.

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world (pp. 56–64). A more accessible treatment of the desirable difficulties framework by Robert Bjork and his frequent collaborator (and spouse) Elizabeth Bjork. Available as a PDF online.

On Elaboration and Depth of Processing

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. The foundational paper on depth of processing. Established that how deeply information is processed determines how durably it is retained. A classic, and still worth reading.

Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291–300. Research specifically on elaborative interrogation demonstrating the mechanism by which generating explanations improves retention.

Accessible Books

Carey, B. (2014). How We Learn: The Surprising Truth About When, Where, and Why It Happens. Random House. Science journalist Benedict Carey's exploration of the counterintuitive findings from memory and learning research. Well-written, engaging, and covers many of the same findings as this chapter from a narrative perspective.

Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 2. The "Learning Scientists" team — whose free resources at learningscientists.org are excellent — present the six evidence-based strategies for learning in this accessible open-access paper. The Learning Scientists website itself (learningscientists.org) is a highly recommended ongoing resource for anyone wanting to stay current with learning science findings.