The study article admitted that their research had some limitations that may affect interpretation of the results:

- the study did not separate students into intervention or control groups randomly
- it relied on students self-reporting on surveys
- the effect of the intervention is tied into the class curriculum and structure (the intervention group had 3 midterm exams compared to 1 midterm exam for the control group)


University of California, Berkeley

More results regarding the study:

- students who used study strategies like spacing and self-testing according to the survey showed higher grades than students who crammed
- there was a correlation of use of study strategies and grade improvements: for spacing, there was a 5.7-6.2% grade increase and for self-testing, there was a 4.6-6.5% grade increase 
- according to the ANOVA, URM students had a worse overall final grade compared to non-URM students (because while URM students who used study strategies got similar grades to non-URM students, URM students who did not report using these strategies got worse grades than non-URM students who did not use spacing/self-testing) 
- it should be noted that maintaining the use of spacing (for 2016 and 2017 students) and self-testing (for 2017 students) correlated with a higher grade compared to simply adopting the use of study strategies 

Results of Spacing/Self-Testing Study (Part 3)

Rodriguez F, Rivas MJ, Matsumura LH, Warschauer M, Sato BK (2018) How do students study in STEM courses? Findings from a light-touch intervention and its relevance for underrepresented students. PLOS ONE 13(7): e0200767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200767

Learn Before

Related