Effective study strategies are crucial for academic success and well-being. They can help students optimize their learning, achieve their goals more efficiently, and reduce procrastination.
However, the interplay between study strategies, study time, and learning outcomes is not well understood although important to research.
Theobald, M. (2024). Study longer or study effectively? Better study strategies can compensate for less study time and predict goal achievement and lower negative affect. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12725
Key Points
- Both more overall perceived study time and better study strategies (planning, monitoring, concentration, low procrastination) predicted higher daily goal achievement.
- When students used better study strategies, less time was needed to achieve a high goal level compared to days with less strategic studying.
- Perceived study time and study strategies interactively predicted goal achievement.
- Negative affect was particularly high when students studied many hours with low concentration, and low when studying few hours with less procrastination.
- The results suggest a compensatory effect of study time and study strategies on daily goal achievement and affect.
Rationale
The hypothesis that study strategies can compensate for less study time in predicting learning outcomes has often been proposed in self-regulated learning models but rarely tested empirically, especially at the within-person level (Schmitz & Wiese, 2006).
Previous research has separately examined associations between study time, study strategies and academic achievement (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; Richardson et al., 2012), with some studies testing them together as predictors (Doumen et al., 2014; Plant et al., 2005; Theobald et al., 2018).
However, evidence for the within-person interaction between study time and strategies in predicting daily goal achievement is lacking.
This study fills this gap by examining the dynamic interplay between these variables at the daily within-person level to advance understanding of self-regulated learning.
Method
The study used a pre-post design with a 30-day ambulatory assessment period.
University students (N=231) reported their daily perceived study time, use of study strategies (planning, monitoring, concentration, procrastination), goal achievement and affect during the 30 days.
Procedure
Students completed a pre-questionnaire, then morning and evening questionnaires daily for 30 days, followed by a post-questionnaire.
The daily questionnaires assessed study time, strategies, goal achievement and affect.
Sample
231 university students (74% female, mean age 22 years) from different fields of study at a large university in Germany.
Measures
- Perceived study time: self-reported daily in hours. Students reported how many hours they spent studying each day (e.g., “4 hours”).
- Planning strategies: 3 items measuring how well students planned their learning, e.g. “Today, I have a concrete plan for how far I want to get with my learning”. Higher scores indicate better planning.
- Self-monitoring strategies: 3 items assessing students’ monitoring of their learning progress, e.g. “Today, I paid attention to how far I am from my learning goal”. Higher scores reflect more frequent monitoring.
- Concentration: 3 items measuring students’ ability to focus while studying, e.g. “Today I was unfocused while studying” (reverse-scored). Higher scores indicate better concentration.
- Procrastination: 3 items assessing students’ delay of study tasks, e.g. “Today I put off finishing a task”. Higher scores reflect greater procrastination tendencies.
- Goal achievement: Single item measuring students’ daily goal attainment, i.e. “Today, I achieved my goals” rated from 0% (not at all) to 100% (completely).
- Affect: 10-item short version of positive and negative affect scale assessing students’ daily emotional states. Higher scores generally indicate more negative affect, e.g., feeling more stressed or dissatisfied.
Statistical measures
Hierarchical linear modeling was used to account for the nested data structure (days within students).
Study strategies and perceived study time were person-mean centered to examine within-person relations. Experimental condition was included as a control variable.
Results
Hypothesis 1: On days when students used better study strategies (planning, monitoring, concentration, low procrastination), they achieved higher goal achievement in less study time than usual compared to days when studying less strategically.
This H1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2: Students reported less negative affect on days when studying less than usual but using better strategies than on days studying more than usual but less strategically.
This H2 was partially supported. Only concentration and procrastination (not planning/monitoring) interacted with study time to predict affect.
Insight
This study provides novel evidence for the interactive within-person relation between study strategies and study time in predicting learning outcomes.
On days when students planned, monitored, concentrated better and procrastinated less than usual, they achieved their study goals more efficiently – in less time.
This supports self-regulated learning models positing that studying strategically is more important than studying longer.
Interestingly, the study also found that negative affect was highest when studying for many unfocused hours (low concentration) and lowest when studying few hours without procrastinating.
This suggests effective strategy use may reduce the negative emotional impact of high study load.
The findings underscore the benefits of using effective study strategies not just for optimizing goal achievement, but also emotional well-being.
Future research could test these interactive effects in other populations like school children and use objective measures of study time and achievement.
Experimental studies could also examine the causal mechanisms through which specific strategies enable more efficient and less stressful learning.
Implications
The results highlight the importance of teaching students effective self-regulated learning strategies to optimize both academic performance and well-being.
Many university students struggle with time management and procrastination, so offering strategy training programs could help them study more efficiently and reduce stress.
Counselors and academic advisors could assess students’ use of planning, monitoring, concentration, and procrastination techniques and provide guidance to improve these skills.
Future studies should develop reliable measures of within-person variance in study strategies.
Researchers could also compare the interplay of study time and strategies between individuals versus within individuals over time and examine factors that influence day-to-day and person-to-person differences in strategic studying.
Strengths
This study had several methodological strengths, including:
- Ambulatory assessment captured day-to-day intraindividual variations in studying
- Within-person analyses aligned with self-regulated learning theories
- Broad range of study strategies assessed (metacognitive, resource management)
- Affect included as an outcome in addition to goal achievement
- Fairly large sample assessed intensively over a month
Limitations
This study also had several methodological limitations, including:
- University student sample limits generalizability to other populations
- Self-report measures of study time and goal achievement
- Low within-person reliability of some strategy measures
- Correlational design precludes causal conclusions
- Part of a larger study involving an experimental manipulation
References
Primary reference
Theobald, M. (2024). Study longer or study effectively? Better study strategies can compensate for less study time and predict goal achievement and lower negative affect. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12725
Other references
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x
Doumen, S., Broeckmans, J., & Masui, C. (2014). The role of self-study time in freshmen’s achievement. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785063
Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.06.001
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 64–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.02.002
Theobald, M., Bellhäuser, H., & Imhof, M. (2018). Identifying individual differences using log-file analysis: Distributed learning as mediator between conscientiousness and exam grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.019
Keep Learning
- What are some effective planning, monitoring, and concentration strategies students could use to study more efficiently? How might they combat procrastination?
- This study focused on university students. How might the relationship between study strategies, study time, goal achievement and affect differ for younger students or adult learners?
- The results suggest studying strategically is associated with both performance and emotional benefits. What institutional policies or resources could universities provide to better support students’ self-regulated learning skills and well-being?
- How might individual differences like motivation, self-efficacy or personality influence one’s use of effective study strategies over time? What contextual factors (deadlines, task difficulty, learning environment) likely shape day-to-day variations in strategic studying?
- If you were designing an experimental study to test the causal effects of study strategies on efficient goal achievement, what would the intervention look like? What outcomes would you measure and why?
