The Read-Recite-Review Study Strategy: Effective And Portable
The Three R’s
An Analysis of Psychological Science’s Read-Recite-Review Strategy
Michelle Ly
St. John’s University
Abstract
Though the use of note-taking and rereading is most notably known as the best study technique amongst college students, we see that other ways of retaining information can be more beneficial than that of writing notes and reading them over before exams. The article at hand tests the idea of a 3R method which is the use of reading, recalling, and reviewing information instead of traditional study methods. The usage of the 3R strategy in studying is seen as more effective than traditional note-taking, due to the 3R strategy being able to increase the chances of recalling information due to its use of recitation and rereading after the first exposure to the information being tested. Using a study based on correlations, both the first and second experiments proved the improved ability of recalling information immediately and after a bit of time compared to those tested using note taking strategies and by rereading alone. The second experiment used more complex passages and information causing those who just reread to score lower than those who used the 3R method or took notes (the scores were equivalent with these two groups). The 3R method focuses on the person using the method which makes it so much more efficient and successful than any other study method.
Study methods amongst college students today consist of two important things; rereading and note-taking. To the average student, these methods are important to succeeding in any college classroom or so we thought. A study done at Washington University in St. Louis and Furman University proves this idea otherwise. This correlational study done by Mark McDaniel, Daniel Howard, & Gilles Einstein highlights the correlation of successful test scores and study methods by testing three popular methods of studying: traditional note-taking, rereading only and
An Analysis of Psychological Science’s Read-Recite-Review Strategy
Michelle Ly
St. John’s University
Abstract
Though the use of note-taking and rereading is most notably known as the best study technique amongst college students, we see that other ways of retaining information can be more beneficial than that of writing notes and reading them over before exams. The article at hand tests the idea of a 3R method which is the use of reading, recalling, and reviewing information instead of traditional study methods. The usage of the 3R strategy in studying is seen as more effective than traditional note-taking, due to the 3R strategy being able to increase the chances of recalling information due to its use of recitation and rereading after the first exposure to the information being tested. Using a study based on correlations, both the first and second experiments proved the improved ability of recalling information immediately and after a bit of time compared to those tested using note taking strategies and by rereading alone. The second experiment used more complex passages and information causing those who just reread to score lower than those who used the 3R method or took notes (the scores were equivalent with these two groups). The 3R method focuses on the person using the method which makes it so much more efficient and successful than any other study method.
Study methods amongst college students today consist of two important things; rereading and note-taking. To the average student, these methods are important to succeeding in any college classroom or so we thought. A study done at Washington University in St. Louis and Furman University proves this idea otherwise. This correlational study done by Mark McDaniel, Daniel Howard, & Gilles Einstein highlights the correlation of successful test scores and study methods by testing three popular methods of studying: traditional note-taking, rereading only and
Bibliography: McDaniel, Mark A., Daniel C. Howard, and Gilles O. Einstein. "The Read-Recite-Review Study Strategy: Effective And Portable." Psychological Science 20.4 (2009): 516-522. Print.