Students often know the right strategies and still avoid them
A common assumption is that students skip effective study methods because they have never heard of them. Surveys of students challenge that picture: many are quite aware of retrieval practice, spacing, and explaining, even though they are less aware of pretesting and interleaving [1]. In separate studies, students asked to describe what poor, average, and high performers do—or to judge vignettes of students using different strategies—were generally able to identify effective ones, including explanation, pretesting, and some interleaving [2].
That matters for correction because it narrows what information can accomplish. If the problem were pure ignorance, a clear explanation of the evidence would fix it. But when students already rate a strategy as effective and still don't use it, the missing piece is something else [2].
The barrier is cost, effort, and confidence—not facts
When researchers asked why students avoid strategies they know work, the answers centered on cognitive costs: the time and effort involved, anxiety, and the extra planning and preparation required [1]. The same theme appears in the vignette and survey work, where the authors suggest that improving strategy use may depend less on teaching what works and more on raising self-efficacy, reducing perceived costs, and building better habits [2].
So the information most likely to help is information that speaks to those costs. A message that a technique is effective addresses the wrong obstacle; a message that makes the technique feel manageable, less anxiety-provoking, and easier to fit into an existing routine addresses the obstacle students actually report [1][2]. This is a suggestion about where to aim interventions, not a demonstrated fix—these studies identify the gap and propose directions rather than testing a corrective message head-on.
Mistaken beliefs often arrive through people, not papers
Students reported learning about both effective and ineffective strategies mainly from teachers, friends, and their own trial and error; published research was the least common source [1]. That helps explain why overrating highlighting and rereading notes persists—these habits are passed along socially and reinforced by familiarity rather than by evidence [1].
One implication is that correction may need to come through the same channels that created the belief. If teachers are a primary source, then the accuracy of what teachers are taught matters. An analysis of teacher-education readings found that two of the most effective learning strategies were not explained, and that inconsistent terminology in learning science may contribute to misconceptions [3]. Correcting students' beliefs may therefore also mean correcting the material their instructors receive.
Corrective information works best when it confronts the error directly
Outside the study-strategy domain, there is evidence about the form correction should take. Work on microinstructional methods describes presenting typical misconceptions and then supplying evidence that the misconception leads to a problem, with the amount and detail of corrective information from a teacher or instructional material varying [4]. In nanoscale science, concept mapping combined with conceptual change texts—materials designed to surface and directly confront a wrong idea—was evaluated for correcting undergraduate misconceptions [5].
These studies show that simply adding correct information is not the same as confronting a specific wrong belief. The pattern is consistent with the study-strategy findings: a correction that names the mistaken belief (for example, that rereading is efficient) and then shows why it fails may be more useful than a general description of good techniques [4][5]. That said, the concept-mapping and conceptual-change evidence comes from science content, not study habits, so it supports the format of correction rather than proving it works for study-strategy beliefs specifically [5].
Sources used in this answer
A closer look at students’ knowledge of effective learning strategies, where they learn about them, and why they do not use them
Students are often aware of effective strategies like retrieval practice and spacing but overrate highlighting and rereading, and they avoid effective strategies mainly because of time, effort, anxiety, and planning costs.
Students Can (Mostly) Recognize Effective Learning, So Why Do They Not Do It?
Students can generally recognize effective strategies such as explanation, pretesting, and some interleaving yet still don't use them, suggesting interventions should target self-efficacy, perceived costs, and habits rather than knowledge alone.
Are We Forgetting Something? Two of the Most Effective Learning Strategies Are Not Explained in Teacher-Education Materials
An analysis of teacher-education readings found that two of the most effective learning strategies were not explained, and inconsistent learning-science terminology may contribute to misconceptions.
Selected microinstructional methods to facilitate knowledge construction: Implications for instructional design
Microinstructional methods can present typical misconceptions and then provide evidence that the misconception leads to problems, with corrective information from a teacher or instructional material varying in detail.
Concept mapping and conceptual change texts: a constructivist approach to address the misconceptions in nanoscale science and technology
Concept mapping combined with conceptual change texts was evaluated as an approach to correcting undergraduate misconceptions in nanoscale science and technology.