Study skills training may help children in maths, reading and writing, and motivation.
HelpedThe short version
Across 48 studies, children taught ways to learn did better in maths than groups without training.
- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
Children in grades 1 to 6, about 5 to 12 years old, in regular schools. The paper does not print how many children there were in total or the boy-to-girl split.
What they did
Each study taught children ways of learning, such as memory tricks, planning and checking their own work, and feedback on progress. The children were compared with a group that did not get the training. Researchers or regular teachers ran the training.
What happened
The biggest gains were in maths. Motivation came next, then other school subjects, then reading and writing. The paper's tables give slightly different sizes, so the exact numbers are not certain.
What the review found
- HelpedGoals
Across 48 studies, children taught ways to learn did better in maths than groups without training.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs groups that got no strategy training · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedGoals
Across 48 studies, children taught ways to learn did better in reading and writing than groups without training.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs groups that got no strategy training · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedGoals
Across 48 studies, children taught ways to learn did better in other subjects than groups without training.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs groups that got no strategy training · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedMotivation
Across 48 studies, children taught ways to learn became more motivated than groups without training.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs groups that got no strategy training · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Unclear how groups were picked
- Numbers unreliable
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
- The review didn't check the studies' quality or look for missing studies
Source
How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes (2008)
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003 (opens in a new tab)
