Strategic knowledge and consistency in students with good and poor study skills

Abstract

Early adolescence is characterised by an increase in study requirements and the establishment of a systematic study method. However some students fail in study tasks. Teachers often attribute their difficulties to poor content knowledge or poor effort, without taking into consideration the specific role of study strategies. The present paper tests the hypothesis that poor study skills are related to students’ inadequate knowledge of good strategies and/or to their inconsistent use. From a sample of 354 students, aged between 12 and 15, on the basis of a study standardised test (AMOS 8–15; Cornoldi, De Beni, Zamperlin, & Meneghetti, 2005) we selected two groups of students, with good and poor study skills respectively, and we asked them to rate their knowledge and actual use of 22 good and 10 less adequate study strategies. We found that all students reported using strategies to a lesser extent than should be expected on the basis of their estimated importance, but they were all able to distinguish between poor and good strategies. However, students with poor study skills were less able to make this distinction and were less consistent in matching their knowledge to their use of strategies. It is concluded that strategic use and consistency play a crucial role in successful studying.

Full text

This article was downloaded by:[University of Padova]
On: 26 October 2007
Access Details: [subscription number 770142424]
Publisher: Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713734596
Strategic knowledge and consistency in students with
good and poor study skills
Chiara Meneghetti
a
; Rossana De Beni
a
; Cesare Cornoldi
a
a
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Online Publication Date: 01 July 2007
To cite this Article: Meneghetti, Chiara, De Beni, Rossana and Cornoldi, Cesare
(2007) 'Strategic knowledge and consistency in students with good and poor study
skills', European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19:4, 628 - 649
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09541440701325990
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440701325990
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Strategic knowledge and consistency in students with good
and poor study skills
Chiara Meneghetti, Rossana De Beni, and Cesare Cornoldi
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Early adolescence is characterised by an increase in study requirements and the
establishment of a systematic study method. However some students fail in study
tasks. Teachers often attribute their difficulties to poor content knowledge or poor
effort, without taking into consideration the specific role of study strategies. The
present paper tests the hypothesis that poor study skills are related to students’
inadequate knowledge of good strategies and/or to their inconsistent use. From a
sample of 354 students, aged between 12 and 15, on the basis of a study
standardised test (AMOS 8  15; Cornoldi, De Beni, Zamperlin, & Meneghetti,
2005) we selected two groups of students, with good and poor study skills
respectively, and we asked them to rate their knowledge and actual use of 22 good
and 10 less adequate study strategies. We found that all students reported using
strategies to a lesser extent than should be expected on the basis of their estimated
importance, but they were all able to distinguish between poor and good strategies.
However, students with poor study skills were less able to make this distinction and
were less consistent in matching their knowledge to their use of strategies. It is
concluded that strategic use and consistency play a crucial role in successful
studying.
During adolescence, students typically meet new study requirements, which
will progressively increase when entering university. However, some students
fail on study performance. Usually teachers attribute school failures to the
fact that students are not prepared and do not study enough.
However, a growing number of studies have analysed to what degree
cognitive and metacognitive aspects, and their relationship, influence school
achievement. Cognitive processing includes skills that help learners carry out
a specific study task (such as attention, language, memory, etc.); metacog-
nitive aspects include skills that help learners understand and regulate these
cognitive processes (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1998). There exists a large
Correspondence should be addressed to Cesare Cornoldi, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale,
Via Venezia, 8, 35131 Padova, Italy. E-mail: cesare.cornoldi@unipd.it
The authors wish to thank Nicolette Whitteridge for helpful comments on this paper.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
2007, 19 (4/5), 628  649
#
2007 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ecp DOI: 10.1080/09541440701325990

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
body of evidence suggesting that metacognitive processing is a hallmark of
effective learning. Pressley and his colleagues (van Etten, Pressley, &
Freebern, 1998; van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994), for example, concluded
that successful learners are motivationally well oriented and actively use
metacognitive strategy knowledge to manage their coursework.
In the realm of metacognitive studies there is an increasing interest in
analysing the role of study learning strategies with particular reference to the
case of study processes, a case especially representative for examining the
relationship between strategies and achievement. Study strategies are defined
as a group of systematic procedures or activities applied during learning that
support students’ active manipulation of text content and other material
(figures, tables, etc.). In fact, studying is characterised by a combination of
study strategies used in different phases, such as planning, reading
comprehension, memorisation, and review phases (Pressley et al., 1995;
Schneider & Pressley, 1997).
Several researches have focused on the development of study strategies
during childhood and adolescence. In particular researches comparing study
methods and strategies among adolescents found that high school achievers
used better adaptive strategies with favourable consequences on school
achievement (Wolters, 1998). For example in reading comprehension high
achievers showed greater organisational abilities (Kleijn, van der Ploeg, &
Topman, 1994), a greater tendency to use previous knowledge to understand
the text (Staynoff, 1997); moreover they were better able to distinguish
the main ideas from the details (Moreland, Dansereau, & Chmielewski,
1997). High achievers also actively memorised the content (Beishiuzen &
Stoutjesdijk, 1999), using schema-driven strategies involving schemas,
diagrams, tables, and note making (Wood, Motz, & Willoughby, 1998).
During the review phase they paid attention to revision of the content and
used self-testing strategies to verify their learning (Wilding & Valentine,
1992).
Some studies found that study strategies are strictly related to the self-
regulation ability (Cornoldi, De Beni, & Fioritto, 2003; Moe`, Cornoldi,
De Beni, & Veronese, 2004), i.e., the metacognitive control of the study
activity. Cornoldi et al. (2003) showed that self-regulation is a relevant factor
in successful studying. Using a structural equation modelling methodology,
the authors found that strategies and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) abilities
modulated the self-regulation factor, which together with motivational
aspects (achievement goals and effort attribution) were good predictors of
academic achievement. Similarly, Bembenutty and Zimmerman (2003)
found that motivational aspects (i.e., self-efficacy, intrinsic interest, and
outcome expectancy) influenced the final course grade, through the
mediation of self-regulation. According to these authors, self-regulation
represents the metacognitive ability regulating the use of study strategies. At
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 629

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
the same time other studies showed the relevance of knowledge about
efficacy of strategies. Some of them (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 2004; Schraw,
1998) examined the role of conditional knowledge, i.e., of metacognitive
knowledge focusing of the subject’s perception of the specific utility of a
strategy for him-/herself.
Some metacognitive studies focused on the distinction between reported
‘‘knowledge about the utility’’ and ‘‘use’’ of study strategies. The ‘‘knowl-
edge about the utility’’ of study strategies involves the ability to recognise
adequate and inadequate strategies that can be applied in the different
learning phases. Some authors (Garner, 1990; Nolen, 1988; Nolen &
Flaladyna, 1990) found that in order to have a good study method, it is
important to evaluate also the personal utility of study strategies. Utility
refers to the students’ personal and informal assessment of the usefulness of
a particular learning strategies or method for their own study. Student
knowledge about utility, on the other hand, should describe metacognitive
beliefs about studying and refers to the ideal perception of self as student
(Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). Therefore, utility ratings could be
considered as an index of a particular subsystem of the students’ ‘‘ideal’’ self
(describing how the student would like to study) or rather of the
‘‘imperative’’ self (describing how the student believes he/she should study).
If students do not find ways to internalise a particular learning strategy and
to apply it in study activities, they will not use it. The ‘‘use’’ of studying
strategies is the ability to utilise them monitoring and regulating their
application in the studying phases (Cornoldi, 1995; De Beni & Moe`, 1997;
De Beni, Moe`, & Cornoldi, 2003; Moe`, Cornoldi, & De Beni, 2001). The
reported use should describe the actual perception of self as students, i.e.,
the actual behaviour in study activity. A characteristic of successful students
is their ability to model their awareness on the utility and flexibility of
strategies during study. They are aware of the different study strategies,
choose the most appropriate ones, and monitor their use during learning.
The latter aspect is generally considered a critical factor for study skills
abilities, because it provides learners with feedback regarding their pro-
gress in performance; without self-monitoring, efficient control over one’s
cognitive system may be very limited (Butler & Winne, 1995; Pintrich,
Wolters, & Baxter, 2000).
A series of studies have already shown that effective use of strategies,
associated with knowledge about them, affects study performance (e.g.,
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Weinstein & Mayer,
1986). For example, Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, and Reis (2003) investi-
gated whether the perceived usefulness and the use of self-regulated learning
strategies provided a differential prediction on academic achievement in
students with and without learning disabilities (LD). Using a structural
equation modelling, they found that students with LD did not differ
630
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
significantly from students without LD in the perception of usefulness but
differed in the use of self-regulated strategies. For students with LD,
academic achievement seemed to be mediated by compensatory strategies
due to technology support and help from other people, but not by the use of
self-regulated strategies. If it is true that poor achievement is in general
associated with poor knowledge and use of strategies, it is also true that not
all the procedures/strategies implemented by students are equally effective.
For example in stark contrast with good achievers, low achievers tend to use
maladaptive strategies characterised by strict adherence to the text and
reduced personal elaboration of the content (Gadzella, 1995). They have
difficulty weighting the importance of the different information in a text,
and adopt underlining or read-and-repeat techniques (Wood et al., 1998).
Not only does knowledge about the utility and use of strategies seem
important, but there is also a third aspect, i.e., strategic consistency, which
expresses the correspondence between knowledge about the utility and use
ratings of the same strategy (De Beni & Moe`, 1997; Moe` et al., 2001). The
notion of strategic consistency can be considered as an example of the case
when a person sees his/her real self not far from his/her ideal self (Higgins,
1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986) and can be applied not only to students who
give both high ratings for knowledge about the utility and for use of the
same strategy but also to students who give low ratings both in the case of
knowledge and of use. A smaller distance between these two elements
reflects good strategic consistency, while a greater distance indicates
considerable strategic inconsistency between the knowledge and the use of
a strategy. Accordingly Moe` et al. (2001) analysed the difference between
knowledge, use ratings, and the correspondence between these ratings
(strategic consistency index) in low and high university achievers. Academic
achievement was measured using the number of the exams passed. Results
clearly showed that low achievers present higher discrepancy between
knowledge and use ratings, i.e., a greater inconsistency in comparison with
high achievers. Taken together these results suggest that strategic aspects,
articulated in knowledge, use, and strategic consistency, could be critical
metacognitive factors in students’ success.
Although several studies investigated the relation between knowledge and
use of strategies (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Pressley et al., 1995), no
study directly used a strategic consistency index to shed light on study
success in early adolescents. Given the relevant role of study strategies
consistency in the success of university students (Moe` et al., 2001), the
general goal of the present study was to explore whether this metacognitive
aspect could be crucial in adolescent students as well.
Early adolescence represents a critical moment for the establishment of a
good study method, which should then be used when confronted with the
more complex study requirements that students will meet in the following
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 631

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
years. Furthermore, the changes in the classroom environment during
transition from primary to secondary school affect children’s perceptions
of their ability to master study material (e.g., Eccles, Roeser, Wigfield, &
Freedman-Doan, 1999). Despite teachers’ typical assumption that study
success is mainly due to intelligence, knowledge, and effort, strategic
abilities, and in particular strategic consistency, could be a critical factor
that differentiates students with good and poor study skills.
In conclusion, despite the general idea that less successful students are
poor strategy users, so far no studies have specifically examined either low
success students, i.e., students who fail in study/learning tasks, or the nature
of strategic deficit in adolescents with poor study skills. The aim of the
present study was to compare adolescent students with good and poor study
skills in (1) knowledge of efficacy of strategies, (2) their reported use, and (3)
the strategic consistency in the use of good and less effective strategies.
In the present study we also considered the distinction between good
strategies (e.g., using schemas, writing notes beside the text) and inadequate
strategies (e.g., reading the text aloud or skipping difficult content) in
knowledge ratings, use ratings, and consistency scores. We supposed that
students with high study skills would have developed greater ability to
distinguish between good and less effective strategies as compared with low
study skills students, and we attributed greater importance to good strategies
both for utility and use ratings. By contrast, we expected that students with
low study skills would not only have more difficulty in distinguishing
between good strategies and less effective strategies in their utility, but would
also consider as less important the use of effective study strategies. In
accordance with these hypotheses we expected that low study skills would
be also less consistent than high study skills students in the use of good and
less effective strategies. As suggested by Moe` et al. (2001), students with
low study skills should have a more confused representation of the utility
of strategies and consequently should be less systematic in their reported use
of strategies independently of their knowledge of the efficacy of strategies. In
fact, we predicted that students with low study skills would present a
tendency to lower consistency in the reported use of the strategies, applied,
to a greater or lesser extent, independently from the perceived efficacy.
These hypotheses were tested using an objective Study Task (ST) and two
Strategy Questionnaires (SQ1 and SQ2) included in a standardised battery,
recently devised in Italy, which measures the components of study abilities
(Cornoldi, De Beni, Zamperlin, & Meneghetti, 2005). Study Task (ST)
measures the ability to learn text content. Time is given to study a text after
which recall is tested using three tasks: The first measures the ability to select
relevant information, the second and third measure the recall of information
recognising true/false statements (second task) and giving brief open answers
(third task). Tasks are chosen which require both multiple choice and open
632
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
answers to check for a possible negative effect of multiple choice test (March,
Roediger, Bjork, & Bjork, 2005).
The Strategy Questionnaires measure the knowledge (SQ1) and the use
(SQ2) of adequate (‘‘good’’) and inadequate (‘‘less good’’) strategies and
makes it possible to calculate the correspondence between these two ratings
(strategic consistency; Moe` et al., 2001). Questionnaires include 22 ‘‘good’’
strategies and 10 ‘‘less good’’ strategies. The assumption underlying
the strategy consistency score is that effective students should use all of
the strategies they consider useful, in a flexible way depending on the
particular task and content characteristics.
METHOD
Participants
354 students aged between 12 and 15 (239 males and 115 females)
participated in the initial screening necessary for the selection of groups
with good and poor study skills. Students attended different types of schools
and were representative of student population of this age in North-Eastern
Italy. Gender and age information concerning the participants, divided into
two study skill groups, are presented in Table 1 (see Student Selection
section).
Materials
Strategy questionnaires. The two AMOS 815 Strategy Questionnaires
(Cornoldi et al., 2005) collect ratings of the knowledge (SQ1) and of the use
(SQ2) of 32 study strategies (see Table 4 for the complete list of studying
strategies). The strategies are listed in a different order in the two
questionnaires. The instructions for SQ1 and SQ2 are different (see
Procedure section). The ratings are given using a Likert scale from 1 (no
knowledge/no use) to 4 (good knowledge/good use). The internal consis-
tency (Cronbach’s alpha) calculated on current sample is .68 for the
knowledge rating, .74 for the use rating, and .71 for the strategic consistency
score, that are similar to those reported in the handbook (for more details
see Cornoldi et al., 2005). For the purposes of this study, a distinction
between good and poor strategies was validated by administering the SQ1
questionnaire to 38 teachers. All of them taught 11- to 15-year-old students,
worked in north-east Italy and taught Mathematics, Italian, or a foreign
language. The teachers rated the utility of each strategy on a scale from 1 to
4 (irrespective of how often they themselves used that strategy). They
rated the good strategies higher than the less effective ones (good strategies:
M 3.33 SE 0.036, less effective strategies M1.73 SE 0.051), with
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 633

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
t(37) 24.66 p5.001. Examples of good strategies would be ‘‘Before reading
observe the titles, subtitles, the words highlighted, and the figures’’ and
‘‘While reading check comprehension’’, whereas examples of less good
strategies would be ‘‘Read the text once aloud’’ and ‘‘While studying keep
the TV on as background’’.
Study task. The study task (ST) is also taken from the Italian
standardised battery AMOS 8 15 (Cornoldi et al., 2005). Unlike a reading
comprehension task, students must not only understand the text but also
memorise its content. In fact, the task involves learning a text (982 words)
entitled ‘‘Limpopo Park’’, which describes the geographical characteristics
of the fauna and flora of an African natural park. The procedure involved a
study phase of 30 min, a delay of 15 min, followed by three recall tasks. The
first task required choosing, from a list of eight potential titles, the three that
best summarised the text content (titles); the second required answering six
cued recall questions (open questions); and the third required answering
fifteen true/false questions (true/false questions). Cronbach’s alpha mea-
sured in the current sample of students for the total score is .73. This is
substantially better than that for those of the normative sample .47 (for more
details see Cornoldi et al., 2005). Performance in this task is positively
correlated with school performance using teacher evaluations on study
ability (r .45, p5.001; Cornoldi et al., 2005).
Procedure
An expert administered the SQ1, SQ2, and ST to whole classes including the
experimental subjects. The students were instructed to rate the knowledge of
each study strategy, irrespective of their actual use in the SQ1 and to rate
how much they reported using each study strategy independently of their
knowledge in the SQ2. The exact instructions for SQ1 (Utility) were as
follows: ‘‘This is a list of activities that could be used effectively for studying
a text (a chapter or a paragraph). Read each one carefully and rate how
effective it is for you irrespective of what you usually do.’’ The exact
instructions for SQ2 (Use) were as follows: ‘‘Think about your habitual
activities during the study phase. Read this list of study activities carefully
and rate to what extent you applied the behaviour described, irrespective of
its usefulness.’’ Instructions included an example of the strategy rating in
both questionnaires. There was a delay of 30 min between administration of
the SQ1 and the SQ2. When giving ST instructions the examiner specified
the amount of time for study and stated that, during this period, it was
possible to underline and make notes in the text. One example for each
measure (titles, open questions, true/false questions) was provided. The
634
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
order of administration of the tasks was: (1) SQ1; (2) studying the ST text;
(3) SQ2; (4) the recall tasks of ST. This schedule was decided on the basis of
the following considerations: In order to have a study/memory test rather
than a reading comprehension test we needed a substantial time interval
between study and recall tasks in which students were involved in other
activities. Furthermore, administration of strategy questionnaires before and
after the study phase made the students aware of their strategy knowledge
before actually studying and after an actual study experience. Teachers
responsible for coordinating the teacher team for that class rated the study
skills of their students using a Likert scale from 1 (low study ability) to 4
(good study ability).
Student selection
The scores for the ST were assigned in accordance with the instructions in
the handbook: 1 point for each title correctly selected (maximum score 3),
from 0 to 2 points for each open question (maximum score 12), 1 or 1
points for each true/false sentence correctly or erroneously verified
respectively (maximum score 15). The total ST score was obtained adding
up the score for each measure. The first and third quartiles (258 and 758)
derived from the normative data were used to select the low and high study
skills students. Accordingly we selected 82 students with total scores on the
ST5 258 percentile, who composed the low study skills group; 128 students
with total scores on the ST]758 percentile, who composed the high study
skills group. Both study skills groups are representative of all grades (see
Table 1). The high study skill group scored better in the study task as well
as in the teacher’s evaluation of study ability than low study skill group:
study task, F(1, 208) 758.18, p5.001; teacher evaluation of study skills,
F(1, 208)92.34, p5 .001 (means and standard errors are presented in
Table 2). Students with good study skills formed a larger group, suggesting
that the overall abilities level of our initial sample was higher than that of the
normative sample.
TABLE 1
Number and gender composition of the low and high study skill groups
Grade Number Low study skills High study skills
12-year-old students 38 19 (13 M, 6F) 19 (12M, 7F)
13-year-old students 57 16 (13 M, 3F) 41 (37 M, 4F)
14-year-old students 23 6 (3 M, 3F) 17 (14 M, 3F)
15-year-old students 92 41 (31 M, 10F) 51 (21 M, 30F)
Total 210 82 (60 M, 22 F) 128 (84 M, 44 F)
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 635

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
RESULTS
Strategy questionnaires
We calculated six strategic indexes: (1) Knowledge of good strategies, (2)
Knowledge of less effective strategies, (3) Use of good strategies, (4) Use of
less effective strategies, (5) Strategic consistency of good strategies, (6)
Strategic consistency of less effective strategies. Knowledge (SQ1) and use
(SQ2) scores were calculated separately but in the same way; both
questionnaire rating scores were based on the sum of ratings for (1) good
and (2) less effective strategies and the two sums were divided by the
numbers of strategies involved, i.e., by 22 and 10, respectively. The strategic
consistency scores were calculated by summing the absolute values of the
differences between knowledge and use ratings for each strategy; here too,
the sum was divided by 22 and 10, respectively. Absolute values were used
because a lack of consistency might be due to a use rating lower than a
knowledge rating, or vice versa. Consequently, a low score reflected a
smaller difference between knowledge and use ratings, i.e., high strategic
consistency, while high scores reflected a larger difference between knowl-
edge and use ratings, i.e., low strategic consistency. Use of a difference score
was validated and recommended in previous studies (see De Beni et al.,
2003) and in this context appeared more appropriate than other indexes (see
Moe` et al., 2001).
The means and standard errors of knowledge ratings, use ratings and
strategic consistency scores of good and less effective strategies in students
with low and high study skills are presented in Table 3. For each index
calculated from the strategy questionnaires (knowledge rating, use rating,
and strategic consistency score) a 2 2 analysis of variance was performed
comparing the mean ratings given to the good and less effective strategies by
high and low study skills students. These analyses of variance included the
TABLE 2
Means and standard errors of the objective study task scores and
teacher ratings of study ability in low and high study skill groups
(teacher ratings from 1‘‘low study ability’’ to 4‘‘high study ability’’)
Low study skills High study skills
Study task
M 6.71 19.99
SE 0.39 0.29
Teacher evaluation on study ability
M 2.00 3.18
SE 0.09 0.07
636 MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
strategy goodness (good vs. less effective) as a within-participant factor and
study skills (high vs. low) as a between-participants factor.
Judgement of knowledge
Results of the 2 2 ANOVA for mixed design (Groups Strategy goodness)
on knowledge ratings indicated a significant effect of strategy, F(1, 208)
349.47, MSE 0.091, h
2
 .64, p5.001, due to the fact that in general all
students rated the good strategies (M 2.87, SE 0.02) higher than less
effective strategies (M2.27, SE 0.02).
The ANOVA also showed interaction between strategy and study skills,
F(1, 208) 21.33, MSE 0.091, h
2
 .099, p5.001. Means and standard
errors of the knowledge rating differentiated into good and less effective
strategies on the basis of high and low study skills are presented in rows
1 and 2 of Table 3. We carried out planned comparisons analysing the
differences in strategy ratings between high and low study skills groups. We
TABLE 3
Means and standard errors of the knowledge ratings, use ratings,
and strategic consistency scores of the good and less effective
strategies in low and high study skill groups
Low study skills High study skills
Knowledge ratings
Less effective strategies
M 2.36 2.19
SE 0.04 0.03
Good strategies
M 2.81 2.93
SE 0.04 0.03
Use ratings
Less effective strategies
M 2.17 2.01
SE 0.04 0.03
Good strategies
M 2.32 2.56
SE 0.05 0.03
Strategic consistency scores
Less effective strategies
M 0.61 0.46
SE 0.03 0.02
Good strategies
M 0.79 0.65
SE 0.03 0.03
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 637

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
found a significant difference between high and low study skills students
both in the less effective strategies, F(1, 208) 12.02, p5.001, and in the
good strategies, F(1, 208) 5.66, p .018, due to the fact that low study
skills students rated the less effective strategies (M 2.36, SE 0.04) more
highly than high study skills students (M 2.19, SE 0.03), whereas they
rated the good strategies (M 2.81, SE0.04) lower than did the high
study skills students (M 2.93, SE 0.03). To summarise, students with low
study skills were able to discriminate between good strategies but they did it
in a less clear cut way than students with high study skills giving lower
ratings to good strategies and higher ones to inadequate strategies than did
high study skills students.
Judgement of use
The results of the 2 2 ANOVA concerning use ratings showed a significant
effect of strategy, F(1, 208) 108.46, MSE0.106, h
2
 .35, p5 .001. As
previously found with knowledge, but with a general decrease in the
emphasis in the use rating, all students rated good strategies (M 2.44,
SE 0.03) higher than less effective strategies (M 2.09, SE 0.02).
The results showed an interaction between strategy and study skills, F(1,
208) 34.01, MSE 0.106, h
2
 .15, p5 .001. Means and standard errors of
the use rating differentiated into good and less effective strategies on the
basis of high and low study skills are presented in rows 3 and 4 of Table 3. As
for the knowledge ratings, planned comparisons confirmed significant
differences between study skills groups both in less effective strategies, F(1,
208) 9.43, p .002, and in good strategies, F(1, 208) 18.36, p5.001;
in fact low study skills students rated less effective strategies (M 2.17,
SE 0.04) higher than the high study skills students (M 2.01, SE 0.03)
and they rated the good strategies (M 2.32, SE 0.05) lower than did the
high study skills students (M 2.56, SE 0.03). These results confirmed our
hypothesis where students with low study skills give a lower self-rating in the
reported use of good strategies and a higher self-rating in the reported use of
less effective strategies in comparison with students with high study skills.
Strategic consistency
Results of the 2 2 ANOVA concerning the strategic consistency score
indicated a significant effect of strategy, F(1, 208) 57.80, MSE 0.049,
h
2
 .23, p5.001. The mean score of strategic consistency for good
strategies (M 0.72, SE 0.02) was higher than for less effective strategies
(M 0.53, SE 0.02). In other words, there was greater discrepancy
between knowledge and use ratings for good than for less effective strategies.
638
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Furthermore, a significant effect of study skills was found, F(1, 208)
16.37, MSE 0.12, h
2
 .08, p5.001, due to the fact that the strategic
consistency score was lower (high discrepancy between knowledge and use
ratings) in the low study skills students (M 0.70, SE 0.03) than in high
study skills students (M 0.55, SE0.02).
In this case the interaction between strategy and study skills was not
found (FB1) confirming that students with poor study skills were less
consistent for both types of strategies. In fact, detailed inspection of the
results showed that the low study skills group showed lower strategic
consistency than the high study skills group, both for the less effective, F(1,
208)15.68, p5.001, and for the good strategies, F(1, 208) 9.04, p .003:
Low study skills students showed greater discrepancy between knowledge
and use ratings both in less effective strategies (M 0.61, SE 0.03) and in
good strategies (M 0.79, SE 0.03) than the high study skills students (less
effective strategy: M 0.46, SE 0.02; good strategies: M 0.65, SE
0.03). Furthermore comparison between good and less effective strategy
scores showed a significant difference both in low study skill students, F(1,
81)25.29, p5.001, and in high study skill students, F(1, 127)38.60, p5
.001, who reveal a higher degree of consistency in less effective strategies
than good strategies. Means and standard errors for the strategic consistency
score differentiated into good and less effective strategies on the basis of high
and low study skills are presented rows 5 and 6 of Table 3.
Analysis of single strategies
The means and standard errors of knowledge and use ratings and stra-
tegic consistency score for each strategy (22 good and 10 less effective)
differentiated for high and low study skills groups are presented in Table 4.
We reported probability for all comparisons, but, due to the high number of
comparisons, we considered significant only differences with pB.001.
Significant differences between high and low study skill groups in the
indexes (knowledge, use, and strategic consistency) are highlighted in grey in
the corresponding row (see Table 4).
Strategies with most evident differences concerned depth of processing.
Results showed that for two strategies (one good and one less effective) there
was a significant difference between two study skill groups in knowledge,
use, and strategic consistency. For Strategy 18 (‘‘After having studied the text
repeat its content in your own words’’), high study skills students presented
higher scores in knowledge, use, and they were more consistent than low
study skill students. For Strategy 10 (‘‘Skip what you didn’t understand’’)
high study skills students gained lower scores in knowledge, use, and they
were more consistent than low study skill students.
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 639

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
TABLE 4
Means and standard errors for each strategy (good and less effective) in knowledge ratings, use ratings, and strategic consistency
score in high and low study skill groups
Knowledge Use Strategic consistency
Strategies* List of strategies
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Good strategies
1 Think about the concepts already
known about the topic
3.02
(0.08)
2.87
(0.06)
F2.32
p.13
2.41
(0.09)
2.50
(0.08)
F.41
p .52
0.80
(0.09)
0.73
(0.06)
F0.45
p .50
2 Before reading observe the title, subtitles,
the words highlighted, and the figures
2.69
(0.09)
2.66
(0.06)
F0.91
p.76
2.49
(0.11)
2.46
(0.07)
F.06
p .81
0.79
(0.07)
0.56
(0.05)
F7.43
p 5.01
4 Decide how to study the text and/or organise
the study activity (subdivision in parts, the
time of the study, etc.)
2.60
(0.10)
2.88
(0.08)
F5.06
p .03
1.99
(0.10)
2.17
(0.08)
F2.06
p .15
0.97
(0.09)
0.80
(0.06)
F2.37
p .13
5 Scan the text before reading 2.48
(0.09)
2.54
(0.08)
F0.23
p .63
2.11
(0.09)
2.48
(0.18)
F2.43
p .12
0.67
(0.08)
0.85
(0.16)
F0.73
p .39
6 While reading try to foresee the
subsequent contents
1.72
(0.08)
1.48
(0.06)
F5.59
p .02
1.60
(0.09)
1.34
(0.05)
F7.24
p 5.01
0.65
(0.08)
0.49
(0.05)
F4.79
p .03
9 While reading check comprehension 3.01
(0.09)
3.41
(0.06)
F16.14
p 5.001
2.62
(0.10)
3.32
(0.07)
F38.74
p 5.001
0.75
(0.08)
0.44
(0.05)
F12.09
p 5.01
12 Reread parts of the text if misunderstood 3.32
(0.16)
3.72
(0.04)
F7.99
p 5.01
2.58
(0.10)
3.53
(0.04)
F82.21
p 5.001
0.99
(0.15)
0.38
(0.05)
F21.69
p 5.001
14 Underline and highlight the relevant
information, after reading it at least once
3.08
(0.08)
3.35
(0.06)
F7.37
p 5.01
2.78
(0.11)
2.86
(0.08)
F0.33
p .56
0.74
(0.08)
0.83
(0.07)
F6.1
p .43
16 Observe the figures and read the
related captions
2.58
(0.11)
2.43
(0.06)
F1.48
p .23
2.28
(0.11)
2.28
(0.08)
F0.01
p .95
0.71
(0.09)
0.47
(0.05)
F6.98
p 5.010
18 After having studied the text repeat
its content in your own words
3.37
(0.08)
3.79
(0.05)
F24.03
p 5.001
2.99
(0.10)
3.60
(0.06)
F30.20
p 5.001
0.67
(0.08)
0.33
(0.05)
F14.50
p 5.001
640 MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Table 4 (Continued )
Knowledge Use Strategic consistency
Strategies * List of strategies
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
19 Try to memorise the main point using a
trick (rhymes, associations, stories, etc.)
2.56
(0.11)
3.12
(0.25)
F2.81
p .092
2.13
(0.11)
2.42
(0.09)
F3.89
p .06
0.74
(0.08)
0.88
(0.25)
F0.18
p.67
20 While studying write guiding concept next
to the text on a sheet
2.93
(0.09)
3.23
(0.07)
F6.68
p 5.01
2.28
(0.11)
2.71
(0.09)
F9.40
p 5.01
0.93
(0.08)
0.68
(0.07)
F5.14
p.024
23 After having studying the text write
a summary
2.47
(0.11)
2.30
(0.08)
F1.73
p .18
1.78
(0.10)
1.64
(0.08)
F1.27
p .26
0.84
(0.08)
0.77
(0.06)
F0.45
p .51
24 Read silently trying to understand 2.67
(0.10)
2.71
(0.08)
F0.15
p .70
2.30
(0.11)
2.80
(0.08)
F11.33
p 5.01
0.60
(0.08)
0.45
(0.05)
F3.19
p .07
25 Think of questions the teacher might ask 3.10
(0.08)
2.94
(0.07)
F2.41
p .12
2.56
(0.10)
2.63
(0.08)
F0.23
p .63
0.80
(0.09)
0.58
(0.05)
F5.51
p .02
26 After the study try to do schemas,
diagrams, or tables
2.67
(0.11)
2.70
(0.08)
F0.80
p .78
1.93
(0.10)
2.17
(0.08)
F3.47
p .064
0.85
(0.09)
0.72
(0.06)
F1.69
p .19
27 Repeat after having finished study 3.07
(0.08)
3.19
(0.06)
F1.41
p .24
2.77
(0.10)
3.15
(0.08)
F8.59
p 5.01
0.67
(0.09)
0.50
(0.05)
F3.22
p .07
28 Repeat the material after a certain
period of time
2.79
(0.10)
2.96
(0.08)
F1.79
p .18
2.57
(0.11)
2.80
(0.09)
F2.64
p .11
0.63
(0.08)
0.59
(0.06)
F0.23
p .63
29 Repeat the material with a friend 2.64
(0.09)
2.63
(0.08)
F0.20
p .89
1.91
(0.10)
1.92
(0.07)
F0.01
p .94
0.95
(0.09)
0.80
(0.06)
F2.32
p .13
30 Explore the argument more thoroughly
using other sources and looking for other
information
2.56
(0.10)
2.73
(0.08)
F1.89
p .17
1.61
(0.08)
1.75
(0.07)
F1.51
p .22
1.02
(0.10)
1.05
(0.07)
F0.35
p .85
31 Take time to review parts of the text
that were not so well learned
3.07
(0.09)
3.55
(0.04)
F27.03
p 5.001
2.75
(0.11)
3.41
(0.06)
F33.86
p 5.001
0.76
(0.09)
0.47
(0.05)
F8.90
p 5.01
32 Simulate an examination (oral or
written) imagining to be in the situation
3.01
(0.09)
3.13
(0.08)
F0.94
p .32
2.39
(0.10)
2.41
(0.08)
F0.03
p .86
0.84
(0.09)
0.81
(0.07)
F0.74
p .78
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 641

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Table 4 (Continued )
Knowledge Use Strategic consistency
Strategies* List of strategies
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Low
study
skills
High
study
skills F
Less effective strategies
3 Read the text once and aloud 2.89
(0.09)
3.02
(0.08)
F1.18
p .28
2.66
(0.10)
2.73
(0.10)
F0.26
p .61
0.56
(0.07)
0.51
(0.06)
F0.26
p .61
7 While studying keep music on as
background
1.92
(0.12)
1.27
(0.05)
F29.74
p 5.001
1.74
(0.12)
1.37
(0.06)
F9.14
p 5.01
0.47
(0.08)
0.23
(0.05)
F6.35
p 5.01
8 Underline and highlight the relevant information
before reading the complete passage
3.10
(0.10)
3.41
(0.06)
F7.86
p 5.01
2.93
(0.11)
3.08
(0.08)
F1.23
p .27
0.60
(0.09)
0.53
(0.06)
F0.51
p .48
10 Skip what you didn’t understand 1.81
(0.10)
1.32
(0.05)
F23.32
p 5.001
1.89
(0.11)
1.21
(0.04)
F42.33
p 5.001
0.64
(0.08)
0.29
(0.04)
F16.55
p 5.001
11 Pay attention to the words and the information
on the text without considering the figures
2.54
(0.10)
2.60
(0.07)
F0.31
p .58
2.33
(0.10)
2.51
(0.08)
F2.02
p .16
0.79
(0.08)
0.53
(0.06)
F6.74
p 5.01
13 While studying keep the TV on as
background
1.55
(0.10)
1.11
(0.03)
F23.74
p 5.001
1.84
(0.11)
1.32
(0.06)
F19.39
p 5.001
0.43
(0.08)
0.27
(0.05)
F4.43
p 5.01
15 Copy out in a workbook the most
difficult parts
2.09
(0.10)
1.95
(0.06)
F1.71
p .19
1.59
(0.09)
1.33
(0.06)
F6.64
p .011
0.68
(0.08)
0.69
(0.06)
F0.01
p .92
17 Rereading the text more than once,
out loud and with expression
2.79
(0.11)
2.83
(0.08)
F0.08
p .78
2.43
(0.11)
2.45
(0.10)
F0.03
p .86
0.80
(0.08)
0.67
(0.06)
F1.77
p.18
21 After finishing your study, try to
repeat the text literally
1.91
(0.09)
1.56
(0.06)
F10.93
p 5.001
1.66
(0.09)
1.40
(0.06)
F6.80
p 5.01
0.64
(0.08)
0.37
(0.05)
F9.89
p 5.01
22 Rereading aloud the text at least once 2.85
(0.09)
2.90
(0.08)
F0.13
p .71
2.62
(0.11)
2.73
(0.09)
F0.53
p .47
0.62
(0.08)
0.56
(0.06)
F0.41
p .52
The grey colour highlights the significant statistical differences of strategies scores between the two study skill groups. * Numbering corresponds to the
presentation order of QS1.
642 MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Other critical strategies concerned comprehension monitoring and again
deep text elaboration. For three strategies (two good and one less effective)
there was a significant difference in knowledge and use and a tendency in
consistency index (p .08). For Strategies 9 (‘‘While reading check
comprehension’’) and 31 (‘‘Take time to review parts of the text that were
not so well learned’’) high study skills students presented greater score in
knowledge, use, and they tended to be more consistent than low study skill
students. For Strategy 13 (‘‘While studying keep the TV on as background’’)
high study skills students gained lower scores in knowledge, use, and they
tended to be more consistent than low study skill students. Furthermore in
Strategy 12 (‘‘Reread parts of the text if misunderstood’’) high study skills
students tended to gain higher scores in knowledge, scored significantly in
use, and were more consistent than low study skill students. Finally, in
dysfunctional Strategies 21 (‘‘After finishing your study try to repeat the text
literally’’) and 7 (‘‘While studying keep music on as background’’) high study
skills students gained lower scores in knowledge, tended to gain lower scores
in use, but higher scores in strategic consistency than low study skills
students.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Metacognitive literature has shown that poor achievement is related to a
poor knowledge about the utility and use of strategies (e.g., Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996; Pressley et al., 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), but the
nature of this relationship has still not been considered in all its aspects. The
present paper aimed to gain some understanding of this relationship by
considering an important aspect associated with achievement, i.e., the study
skill ability, which seems particularly dependent on good method of study.
Until now no research had investigated the differences between knowl-
edge about the utility, use, and correspondence (strategic consistency) of
study strategies, nor had the case of adolescent students with different study
skills received particular attention. In the present research, study skills were
analysed in relation to reported knowledge about the utility and use of
strategies, distinguished for their efficacy, and the nature of this relationship
was investigated using a metacognitive index, the strategic consistency,
recently introduced in university study success researches (e.g., Moe` et al.,
2001) that measure the students’ correspondence in knowledge and use
ratings. These strategic aspects were measured using two strategy ques-
tionnaires (QS1 and QS2) and the study skill was measured with an
objectives study task (ST) all included in a new standardised study battery
(Cornoldi et al., 2005).
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 643

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
The results of the present study showed that all students, both with high
and low study skills, rated good strategies as more effective than inadequate
strategies (although the distance in ratings given to good and poor strategies
was lower in students than in the group of teachers examined in the
preliminary control). However, significant interactions between strategy
goodness and study skills in knowledge and use ratings highlighted the fact
that in low study skills students these discriminative abilities are less
developed in comparison to high study skills students. These interactions
showed that low study skill students attributed lower ratings to good
strategies and higher ratings to the inadequate strategies in comparison with
high study skills students both for knowledge and use ratings. The overall
analysis confirmed that successful students are able to recognise the utility of
good strategies and the usefulness of less effective strategies; they also
reported using good strategies and not using the inadequate ones. Analysis
of single strategies confirmed this pattern of results (Significant differences
were present for some strategies, but for most of the others descriptive
statistics showed tendencies in the same direction.)
These results must be considered together with the fact that, in general,
knowledge ratings were higher than use ratings for both study skills groups
(see means in Table 4). Even if this is a general tendency (motivated by the
fact that it should difficult to use all strategies considered useful at the same
time) it is found less often in successful students.
The pattern of the results is further emphasised by the strategic
consistency index, less adequate in low study skill students than in high
study skills students. It should be noted that high study skills students were
particularly consistent in the case of poor strategies; in fact they obtained the
highest strategic consistency score for the less effective strategies (0.46). In
other words, successful students were able to recognise the inadequate
strategies and consistently reported not using them. For high study skills
students the strategic consistency index for less effective strategies was better
than for good strategies (0.65). In fact, these students were able to recognise
the utility of the latter but did not necessarily report using them. Low study
skill students were in general less consistent than high study skill students
even if this consistency was greater for less effective (0.61) than for good
strategies (0.79). In fact, analysis of single strategies showed that low study
skills students had a lower strategic consistency score, i.e., greater
discrepancy between reported knowledge about the utility and their use,
than high study skills students, in most strategies, even if differences were not
significant in all.
Results of the present study provide new evidence, important for its
educational implications, about metacognitive knowledge in adolescents
with good study skills and the analysis of consistency between knowledge
644
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
and use ratings. Comparisons between students with high and low study
skills confirmed that failure in study tasks could reflect poor knowledge and
use of good strategies and low consistency between knowledge and use of
study strategies, as previously shown for university students (i.e., Moe` et al.,
2001). In general poor study skills students gave less importance to strategies
that focus on cognitive and metacognitive aspects, which mainly affect
learning, like a deep elaboration (see Metcalfe, Kornell, & Son, 2007 this
issue) and self-testing (see Keleman, Winningham, & Weaver, 2007 this issue;
McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, & Morrisette, 2007 this issue).
Detection of single strategies where there was a discrepancy in strategic
consistency scores between the study skill groups may offer an important
insight for education. In particular poor study skills students appeared
poorly consistent in reading comprehension monitoring strategies; students
with low study skills were less able to recognise the utility and apply
strategies that monitor the reading comprehension phase, such as: ‘‘While
reading check comprehension’’ (Strategy 9), ‘‘Reread parts of the text if
misunderstood’’ (Strategy 12), ‘‘After having studied the text repeat its
content in your own words’’ (Strategy 18), ‘‘Take time to review parts of
the text that were not so well learned’’ (Strategy 31); they were less able to
recognise the uselessness and reported applying ‘‘Skip what you didn’t
understand’’(Strategy 10) and ‘‘After finishing your study, try to repeat the
text literally’’ (Strategy 21) more than high study skills students.
Furthermore, low study skills students tended to be less consistent in
dysfunctional strategies related to study context; in fact, they presented
a discrepancy between knowledge about the utility and reported use,
producing a low consistency, in ‘‘While studying keep music on as
background’’ (Strategy 7) and ‘‘While studying keep the TV on as
background’’ (Strategy 13).
There seem to be several reasons for low consistency in unsuccessful
students. In particular they have more difficulty in implementing good
strategies even though they know that some are effective or, by contrast, they
use good strategies without recognising their efficacy. Furthermore, these
students have more difficulty in inhibiting the use of less effective strategies
even if they are recognised as useful, or by contrast they attribute higher
utility to less effective strategies without a corresponding use. This confused
representation of the utility and use of strategies produces inconsistent
behaviour in study activity.
A further explanation of the dissociation between efficacy and use in the
low study skills group may be related to motivational aspects: the effective
strategies are the most demanding and to apply them students must employ
cognitive abilities (i.e., attention, memory) modulated by motivational
aspects such as effort, interest and self-regulation (e.g., Cornoldi et al.,
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 645

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
2003). This explanation may be valid for all students but particularly for low
study skill students.
This lack of correspondence between knowledge of effective strategies and
their use reflects an inadequate metacognitive strategic profile that produces
poor performance in study activity. In these students, study behavioural
habits are not related to what is considered important or known and this
produces a distance between the real self and the ideal self (Higgins, 1987;
Markus & Nurius, 1986). Obviously, it must be noticed that knowledge and
use of a strategy or, more in general, of other metacognitive processes does
not assure that the process is efficaciously used. For example, as Rawson and
Dunlosky (2007 this issue) have shown, self-evaluation can be critical in
learning but students tend to overestimate their knowledge, also under
favourable conditions.
Taken together our results have implications for the theoretical under-
standing of strategic abilities of low study skills students as well as for
educational practice. As already stressed in the literature (e.g., Clearly &
Zimmerman, 2004; Weinstein, Husman, & Dierking, 2000) educational
practice should actively stimulate students to compare the utility of
strategies and their corresponding use in order to enhance their consistency.
It seems essential to promote both strategic awareness and the differential
use of more and less effective strategies; in fact, researches with university
students have found that, when training is focused on strategic consistency,
students with study difficulties improve their strategic abilities and their
study performance (De Beni & Moe`, 1997). In particular, it seems important
to start practising reading comprehension monitoring strategies; an initial
phase of training could be focused on improving use of consistent reading
comprehension strategies that are recognised as useful, i.e., check compre-
hension with reading the content, and, if the content is not understood,
reread it and/or review that part. Harmonious development of strategic
awareness and self-monitoring abilities may be a winning approach to
improve strategic abilities, with a positive influence on study performance
and better results in school achievement.
Finally, it should be noted that good strategic abilities can influence study
success, but it is obvious that the opposite can be also true, as students who
are good at text processing and learning will probably develop more
adequate study strategies (see Schneider & Pressley, 1997, for more detail).
Students with better learning abilities could be more aware and better able to
monitor good strategies during the different learning phases. Thus, it is
possible that knowledge and use of strategies affect study, but the opposite
also occurs, i.e., good text processing skills affect development of high
metacognition. Obviously, study success is also affected by other variables
such as intelligence (De Ribaupierre & Lecerf, 2006), interference control
646
MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
(Elliot, Barrilleaux, & Cowan, 2006) working memory (Wilhelm &
Oberauer, 2006), but these variables interact with metacognitive competence
in producing high school achievement.
REFERENCES
Artzt, A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1998). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework
for studying teacher metacognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instruc-
tional Science, 26(1  2), 5  25.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beishiuzen, J. J., & Stoutjesdijk, E. T. (1999). Study strategies in a computer assisted study
environment. Learning and Instruction, 9, 281  301.
Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2003, April). The relation of motivational beliefs and self-
regulatory processes to homework completion and academic achievement. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago (pp. 21  25).
Report-Research; Speech/Meeting Papers (150).
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and SRL: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 65, 245  281.
Clearly, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based
program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of students learning. Psychology in
the Schools, 41(5), 537  549.
Cornoldi, C. (1995). Metacognizione e apprendimento [Metacognition and learning]. Bologna, Italy:
Il Mulino.
Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Fioritto, M. C. (2003). The assessment of self-regulation in college
students with and without academic difficulties. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.),
Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 16. Identification and assessment (pp. 231 
242). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Zamperlin, C., & Meneghetti, C. (2005). AMOS 8  15. Strumenti di
valutazione di abilita` e motivazione allo studio per studenti dagli 8 ai 15 anni. [AMOS 8  15:
Assessment of the study skills and motivation for students from 8- to 15-year-olds]. Trento, Italy:
Erickson.
De Beni, R., & Moe`, A. (1997). Difficolta` di studio. Un intervento metacognitivo con studenti
universitari [Study difficulties: A metacognitive training with university students]. Psicologia
Clinica dello Sviluppo, 1(3), 433  440.
De Beni, R., Moe`, A., & Cornoldi, C. (2003). AMOS. Abilita` and motiv azione allo studio: Provedi
valutazione e orientamento [AMOS: Study skills and motivation: Orientation and assessment
tasks]. Trento, Italy: Erickson.
De Ribaupierre, A., & Lecerf, T. (2006). Relationship between working memory and intelligence
from developmental perspective: Convergent evidence from a neo-Piagetian and Psychometric
approach. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 109  137.
Eccles, J., Roeser, R., Wigfield, A., & Freedman-Doan, C. (1999). Academic and motivational
pathways though middle childhood. In L. Balter & Tamis-Lemond (Eds.), Child psychology: A
handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 287  317). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Elliott, E. M., Barrilleaux, K. M., & Cowan, N. (2006). Individual differences in the ability to avoid
distracting sounds. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 90  108.
Gadzella, B. M. (1995). Differences in processing information among psychology course grade
groups. Psychological Reports, 77, 1312  1314.
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 647

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 517  530.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94,
319  340.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about
knowledge and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kelemen, W. L., Winningham, R. G., & Weaver, C. A., III. (2007). Repeated testing sessions and
scholastic aptitude in college students’ metacognitive accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 19, 689  717.
Kleijn, W. C., van der Ploeg, H. M., & Topman, R. M. (1994). Cognition, study habits, test anxiety,
and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 75, 1219  1226.
March, E. J., Roediger, H. L., III, Bjork, R. A., & Ligon Bjork, E. (2005). Negative consequences of
testing. Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society, 46th annual meeting, Toronto, Canada.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. The American Psychologist, 41, 954  969.
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing
effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19.
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based programme to enhance
study efficacy in a high- and low-risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19,
743  768.
Moe`, A., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2001). Strategic incoherence and academic achievement. In
T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol.
15. Technological applications (pp. 237  258). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Moe`, A., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Veronese, L. (2004). How can a student’s depressive attitude
interfere with the use of good self-regulation skills? In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri
(Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 17. Research in secondary schools
(pp. 207  220). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Moreland, J. L., Dansereau, D. F., & Chmielewski, T. L. (1997). Recall of descriptive information:
The roles of presentation format, annotation strategy, and individual differences. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 22(4), 521  533.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies.
Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269  287.
Nolen, S. B., & Flaladyna, T. M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs
about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116  130.
Pintrich, P., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning.
In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43  97).
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Burkell, J., Cariglia-Bull, T., Lysynchuk, L., McGoldrick, J., et al.
(1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that REALLY improves children’s academic performance
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key
concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559  579.
Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential impact of
academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university studentes with
and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 270  286.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between 2 and 20. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113  125.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-regulated learners: From teaching to
self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
648 MENEGHETTI, DE BENI, CORNOLDI

Downloaded By: [University of Padova] At: 16:02 26 October 2007
Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students’ academic achievement. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 24(1), 56  68.
Van Etten, S., Pressley, M., & Freebern, G. (1998). An interview study of college freshmens’ beliefs
about their academic motivation. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 105  130.
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.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus
on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Seidner (Eds.), Self-regulation:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 727  747). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315  327). New York: Macmillan.
Wilding, J. E., & Valentine, E. (1992). Factors predicting success and failure in the first-year
examinations of medical and dental courses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 247  261.
Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2006). Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity
related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus response compatibility in choice reaction
time tasks. European Journal of Cognitiv e Psychology, 18(1), 18  50.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224  235.
Wood, E., Motz, M., & Willoughby, T. (1998). Examining students’ retrospective memories of
strategy development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 698  704.
STRATEGIES AND STUDY SKILLS 649