Skip to main content
Log in

Students’ Adaptation of Study Strategies When Preparing for Classroom Tests

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to theories of students’ test preparation, students may optimize their test performance by paying special attention to important information and processing this information in ways that are appropriate to the type of questions included in the forthcoming test. However, research is unclear about the conditions under which students adapt study strategies to the demands of test preparation tasks. Moreover, little is known about the processes and abilities involved. In this article, we present a theoretical model that integrates various factors that seem relevant to strategy adaptation in test preparation, including the teacher’s intended task demands, students’ perceptions of these demands, students’ personal goals for studying, and their ability to adapt and implement strategies. The aim of our model is to stimulate further research on strategy adaptation, which may eventually provide evidence-based guidelines that could help teachers support the development of students’ strategy adaptability and use tests as learning tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 189–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multistage, multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 273–298). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 3 (pp. 285–310). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 2 (pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41, 255–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 9 (pp. 89–132). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 657–679). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. W., Ross, A. R., & Dewalt, M. W. (1986). Level of teacher objectives and their classroom tests: Match or mismatch. Journal of Social Studies Research, 10, 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F. (1979). Are the important ‘individual differences’ between or within individuals? Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 546–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender, W., & Davis, R. A. (1949). What high school students think about teacher-made examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 43, 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1992). The adaptable learning process: Initiating and maintaining behavioural change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 377–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekkamp, H. (2003). Task demands and test expectations: Theory and empirical research on students’ preparation for a teacher-made test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, Amsterdam.

  • Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Berg, H. (2002). Importance in instructional text: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of task demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 260–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004a). Students’ expectations about the processing demands of teacher-made tests. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004b). Teachers’ task demands, students’ test expectations and actual test content. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 205–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L. (1998a). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 277–307). San Diego, California: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L. (1998b). The Strategic Content Learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting effective task interpretation as an important work habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729–1758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning—A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, R. H., & Moore, P. J. (1996). The development of measures of individual differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500–517.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. A., & Fautsch-Partridge, T. (1981). Levels of questions: A framework for the exploration of processing activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 365–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordón, L. A., & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 288–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford (England): Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 486–515). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (1990). Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 323–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Ydewalle, G., & Roselle, H. (1978). Test expectations in text learning. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 609–617). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyne, A. M., Taylor, P. G., & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1994). Information processing and the learning context: An analysis from recent perspectives in cognitive psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshout-Mohr, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Broekkamp, H. (1999). Mapping situations in classroom and research: Eight types of instructional-learning episodes. Learning and Instruction, 9, 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions: The case of the disappearing relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 14, 155–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465–485). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychology Review, 87, 215–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldt, R. C. (1990). Test expectancy and performance on factual and higher-level questions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 212–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, D. W. (1993). Transfer of college developmental reading students’ textmarking strategies. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 25, 17–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, N. J., Knapp, M. S., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 18, 51–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education (pp. 41–55). Buckingham (England): SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1994). Considerations of content and the circumstances of secondary school teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 179–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 692–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakstian, A. R. (1971). The effects of type of examination anticipated on test preparation and performance. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 319–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. E. (1995). A reexamination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 323–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, V. (1997). Lectures and the experience of relevance. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 159–171). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson-Noel, D., & Winne P. H. (2003). Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students’ studying and achievement. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F. Jr. (1989). Text signalling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). Do laboratory findings on test expectancy generalize to classroom outcomes? Review of Educational Research, 61, 94–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luwel, K., Lemaire, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Children’s strategies in numerosity judgment. Cognitive Development, 20, 448–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processing during reading. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive Control Processes in Reading (pp. 201–216). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConkie, G. W. (1977). Learning from text. Review of Research in Education, 5, 3–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel., M., & Einstein, G. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextuallist approach to reading and study strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 113–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. M. L., & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the mark: A study of the examination game. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 519–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–26). Washington, District of Columbia: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (2000). College studying. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research Vol. 3 (pp. 645–666). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, S. B. (1996). Why study? How reasons for learning influence strategy selection. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 335–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuthall, G., & Altonlee, A. (1995). Assessing classroom learning—How students use their knowledge and experience to answer classroom achievement-test questions in science and social-studies. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 185–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Van Meter, P., Van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy—Situational influences on learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles: Perspectives on individual learning differences (pp. 159–184). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellings, G. L. M., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1995). Main points in an instructional text, as identified by students and by their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 742–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996a). Individual differences in adapting to three different tasks of selecting information from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 423–446.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996b). Selection of main points in instructional texts: Influences of task demands. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 355–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Wade, S. E., & Kardash, C. A. M. (1993). Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 652–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (1998). Strategy adaptivity and individual differences. In D. L Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 38 (pp. 115–154). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Another source of individual differences: Strategy adaptivity to changing rates of success. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C. D., Lovett, M. C., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Awareness and working memory in strategy adaptivity. Memory and Cognition, 29, 254–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1997). Perspectives on learning history: A case study. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 363–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 528–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, B. L. (1988). What do adults do when studying for a test with unpredictable questions? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology, London, Ontario.

  • Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, C. (1992). Perceptions of task demands, strategy attributions and student learning. Higher Educational Research & Development, 15, 474–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W. (1988). Proficiency at academic studying. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., Bol, L., Warkentin, R. W., Wilson, M., Strage, A., & Rowher, W. D. (1993). Interrelationships among students study activities, self-concept of academic ability, and achievement as a function of characteristics of high-school biology courses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 499–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1986). Academic studying: The role of study strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying: Summary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1993a). Proficient autonomous learning: Problems and prospects. In M. Rabinovitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 1–32). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W., & Rowher, W. D. (1993b). Studying across the life span. In S. R. Yussen & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Reading Across the Life Span (pp. 241–272). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessments. Human Learning, 3, 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderStoep, S. W., Pintrich, P. R., & Fagerlin, A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in self-regulated learning in college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 345–362.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Etten, S., Freebern, G., & Pressley, M. (1997). College students’ beliefs about exam preparation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 112-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1990). Teachers’ selection of key phrases in instructional texts. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference (NRC), Miami, USA.

  • Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (1997). Teachers’ selection of key phrases in instructional texts. School Field, 6, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2000). Assessing active self-directed learning. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 19–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategieën und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster (Germany): Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 621–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermetten, Y., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (1997). Consistency and variability of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2003). Self-regulating studying by objectives for learning: Students’ reports compared to a model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary School Journal, 82, 493–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., Jamieson-Noel, D. L., & Muis, K. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), New directions in measurement and methods Vol. 12 (pp. 121–155). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., & LeMare, L. (1982). The effects of knowledge of criterion task on comprehension and recall in normally achieving and disabled children. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulated perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hein Broekkamp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Broekkamp, H., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. Students’ Adaptation of Study Strategies When Preparing for Classroom Tests. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 401–428 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9025-0

Keywords

Navigation