Cramming was negatively correlated with spacing (r = -0.54) and with all other learning strategies investigated¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Cramming and spacing shared a strong negative association, and cramming correlated negatively with every other strategy measured. → Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis 2024

Evidence¶

Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis 2024¶

Rebecca Hey · Mark McDaniel · Flaviu A. Hodis. (2024). How undergraduate students learn: uncovering interrelationships between factors that support self-regulated learning and strategy use. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09389-8

q2 · i3 · associational · r2

Correlational analysis of strategy self-reports (Table 2) in the survey of NZ undergraduates; the article reports "a significant strong negative relationship was found between cramming and spacing (r = -0.54)" and notes cramming was negatively correlated with all other strategies, generally with small coefficients.

"A significant strong negative relationship was found between cramming and spacing (r = -0.54). This indicates that students who used cramming a lot employed spacing to a lesser degree (and vice versa)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In regressions predicting self-reported achievement, elaboration positively (Beta = 0.24) and cramming negatively (Beta = -0.30) predicted achievement, but only effort regulation and engagement remained significant in the combined model — related
• Effort regulation and student engagement were the most consistent predictors of learning strategy use and self-reported achievement — related
• Students self-reported less cramming and more class preparation in the JiTT course than in their non-JiTT courses, except students receiving D or F grades — related