The Impact of Study and Learning Strategies On Post-Secondary Student Academic Achievement: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDWithin academic development, it is important for students to use effective study strategies to facilitate learning. Techniques used for long-term information retention include note taking strategies, time management, methods of self-testing and active recall. These strategies are explored to help students learn more effectively to attain their academic goals.METHODA mixed-methods systematic review of peer-review articles and grey literature was conducted with a predetermined criteria for a convergent integrated synthesis approach. PsychInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched with guidance of a PICO-P logic grid and search strategy using keywords of student, study strategies, and achievement alongside filters. Initial studies were screened and reconciled by two independent authors with the use of a piloted screening tool. Using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT), included studies were assessed for quality. Two authors independently performed data extraction. Heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, and measurements precluded meta and statistical analyses; thus, a qualitative analysis of studies was provided.RESULTSFour major themes contributing to academic performance were identified among the appraised articles. These themes were self-testing, scheduling/time management, concept maps, and learning styles. Self-testing, scheduling, and concept maps were positively correlated with increased academic performance, while no correlation was found with learning styles and academic performance.CONCLUSIONIncluded studies provided evidence for significant differences in study strategies implemented by high and low achieving students, such as areas of motivation for learning, efficiency, active recall, retrieval practices, and concept maps. Understanding the effectiveness of certain study strategies is critical for students and educational facilitators to maximize learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it