(来源：www.EnglishCN.com)

In a world as fast-changing and full of information as our own, every one of us — from schoolchildren to college students to working adults — needs to know how to learn well. Yet evidence suggests that most of us don’t use the learning techniques that science has proved most effective. Worse, research finds that learning strategies we do commonly employ, like rereading and highlighting, are among the least effective.

我们生存的这个世界变化极快、信息量大，从中小学生到大学生再到职场人士，所有人都应该知道怎样更好学习。但是有证据表明，我们之中的大多数人并不会使用最有效的学习技巧。更糟糕的是，研究发现我们经常使用的学习策略，如重读和划重点，都是最没有效率的学习技巧之一。

The scientific literature evaluating these techniques stretches back decades and across thousands of articles. It’s far too extensive and complex for the average parent, teacher or employer to sift through. Fortunately, a team of five leading psychologists have now done the job for us.

有关学习技巧评估的科学文献早在几十年前就开始出现，现在已有上千篇文章。一般家长、教师和老板要从中挑选精华，数量太过庞大，内容太过复杂。幸运的是，现在，一个由五名顶尖的心理学家组成的团队已经替我们完成了这项工作。

In a comprehensive report released on Jan. 9 by the Association for Psychological Science, the authors, led by Kent State University professor John Dunlosky, closely examine 10 learning tactics and rate each from high to low utility on the basis of the evidence they’ve amassed. Here is a quick guide to the report’s conclusions:

1月9日，美国心理科学协会发布了一篇全面的报告。肯特州大学的教授John Dunlosky同其他作者一起，仔细研究了十种学习技巧，并基于他们收集的证据，根据实用性的高低给这些学习技巧打了分。以下是报告结论的大致内容：

The Worst

最差学习技巧

Highlighting and underlining led the authors’ list of ineffective learning strategies. Although they are common practices, studies show they offer no benefit beyond simply reading the text. Some research even indicates that highlighting can get in the way of learning; because it draws attention to individual facts, it may hamper the process of making connections and drawing inferences.

在这些作者最没有效率的学习策略列表中，突出显示和下划线的划重点方式排在第一位。虽然这些都是很常见的学习做法，但是研究表明除了帮助阅读文本之外，这些没有任何益处。一些研究中甚至显示，划重点有可能会影响学习进程；因为划重点会让人把吸引力转向了各个独立的事实，它有可能会妨碍学习者理清各个事实间的关系和做出推论。

Nearly as bad is the practice of rereading, a common exercise that is much less effective than some of the better techniques you can use. Lastly, summarizing, or writing down the main points contained in a text, can be helpful for those who are skilled at it, but again, there are far better ways to spend your study time. Highlighting, underlining, rereading and summarizing were all rated by the authors as being of “low utility.”

与划重点差不多的另外一个学习策略是重读，这也是一种常见的做法，比起其他好的策略来说效率更低一些。最后，做汇总或是列出文章中的主要观点对于擅长做这些事的人来说是有帮助的，但是同刚才的策略一样，还有一些策略要比总结好得多，更能充分利用时间。突出显示、下划线、重读和做汇总都被论文作者们评为“实用性低”的学习技巧。

The Best

最佳学习技巧

In contrast to familiar practices like highlighting and rereading, the learning strategies with the most evidence to support them aren’t well known outside the psych lab. Take distributed practice, for example. This tactic involves spreading out your study sessions, rather than engaging in one marathon.

与人们通常使用的划重点、重读相反，那些最好的、有最多论证支持的学习策略，出了心理学实验室反而就没什么人知道了。比如说，分散式学习。这种学习策略的方法是把学习的时间分散开来，而不是像跑马拉松一样地一次性完成学习。

Cramming information at the last minute may allow you to get through that test or meeting, but the material will quickly disappear from memory. It’s much more effective to dip into the material at intervals over time. And the longer you want to remember the information, whether it’s two weeks or two years, the longer the intervals should be.

在最后一分钟把信息塞进脑子里，有可能可以帮助你顺利通过考试或者会议，但是这些信息会很快从记忆中消失。在不同的时间段深入研究学习材料是更有效的学习方法。另外，无论是两周也好两年也好，如果希望能把这些信息记得越久，就越需要延长分散式学习的时间间隔。

The second learning strategy that is highly recommended by the report’s authors is practice testing. Yes, more tests — but these are not for a grade. Research shows that the mere act of calling information to mind strengthens that knowledge and aids in future retrieval.

报告作者们强烈推荐的第二种学习策略是实际测试。没错，要做更多测试，但是不是那种为了获得成绩而进行的测试。研究表明，单单是回忆脑海中的信息这一过程就能强化知识，并且在未来重拾知识时派上用场。

While practice testing is not a common strategy — despite the robust evidence supporting it — there is one familiar approach that captures its benefits: using flash cards. And now flash cards can be presented in digital form. Both spaced-out learning, or distributed practice, and practice tests were rated as having “high utility” by the authors.