# A self-study plan from any book: quizzes by chapter

**How do I make a self-study plan from a book so that I still know it a year later?** A self-study plan from a book has four parts. Take a quiz of about ten questions the day after each chapter, a cumulative quiz at the halfway point and another at the end, and return to that last quiz one month and six months later. Keep the plan for three or four books a year, one at a time.

Published 2026-10-10 by EdProcto. https://edprocto.com/guides/a-self-study-plan-from-any-book-quizzes-by-chapter

You spend a month of evenings on a serious book: a history, popular science, an economics text, a manual for a craft. No course set it and no exam follows. A year later you can say that you read it, and little of what it argued.

This EdProcto guide lays out a self-study plan from any book: quizzes by chapter, two cumulative quizzes, and two returns after the last page. The tool the plan uses is on EdProcto's page [for self-learners](https://edprocto.com/solutions/self-learners); a notebook does the same job more slowly.

We read each study at its published abstract. Rules of our own are labelled, and no plan promises what you will remember.

## How much of a book do you remember a year later?

Mostly its outline, and the loss comes early. We found no study of adults' memory for non-fiction books read for their own sake, so the nearest evidence is a novel.

Stanhope et al. (1993) tested 140 former students on Dickens's *Hard Times*, 3 to 39 months after a university course on it. Recall of the characters' names and roles fell quickly in the first few months, then settled above the baseline. Names went faster than roles, and important events were remembered better than minor ones. Besides the time elapsed, what predicted memory was the mark a student had earned for an essay on the book.

For a book of argument, on our reading, the conclusion survives and the reasons go.

### Do reading goals change what stays?

Yes, in the one experiment we read. In van den Broek et al. (2001), 82 college students read expository texts to study them or for entertainment. Those reading to study drew more inferences that explain and predict. Those reading for entertainment made more associations and evaluations, and recalled less. A quiz booked for tomorrow gives an evening's reading the first goal.

## What makes a book stay: quizzes, summaries, notes or your own questions?

Answering questions from memory does most, explaining comes next, and summaries and the choice of pen or keyboard matter least.

- **Quizzes.** Roediger and Karpicke (2006) had students read prose passages, then read them again or recall them with no feedback. Five minutes later the rereaders remembered more. Two days and a week later the recallers remembered substantially more, although rereading had left students more confident. That is the testing effect.
- **Summaries and explanations.** The review by Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated summarising of low utility, a help to some learners on some tasks, and self-explanation moderate: promising, and not yet adequately tested in real courses.
- **Your own questions.** Weinstein et al. (2010) had people reread short passages, answer questions set for them, or write and answer their own. Writing questions did as well as answering supplied ones, and both beat rereading, but it took at least twice as long.

### Should notes be taken by hand or on screen?

It matters little, on the evidence so far. Morehead et al. (2019) repeated a well-known experiment on lecture notes and found no consistent difference in test scores between longhand, laptop and, in one experiment, no notes at all. Flanigan et al. (2024) pooled 24 studies of college students: handwritten notes, taken and reviewed, gave slightly higher achievement (g = 0.248), though typing produced far more notes.

Both concern lectures. We read no trial of notes on a book read alone, so use whichever you will open again, and write the notes as questions.

## Why do adults who study without a course stop?

Because nothing outside them holds the plan up, and their own forecast of the time was too kind.

- **Persistence.** Jordan (2014) gathered public figures for open online courses. The average course enrolled about 43,000 people and 6.5% completed it; longer courses were completed less.
- **Self-regulation.** Sitzmann and Ely (2011) pooled findings from 90,380 learners in work-related training and education. Goal level, persistence, effort and self-efficacy had the strongest effects on learning. Planning and monitoring showed no significant relationship with it.
- **Prompts to plan.** Kizilcec et al. (2020) tested self-regulation prompts on about a quarter of a million students in 247 online courses. Engagement rose in the first few weeks; completion did not.
- **The planning fallacy.** Buehler et al. (1994) found people's forecasts of their own finishing times too optimistic: they pictured the plan and passed over how similar tasks had gone. In one study the bias vanished when people were told to tie the forecast to past experience.

So our plan is short, dates every quiz, leaves empty weeks, and is forecast from the last book you finished.

## How many books can you study properly in a year?

Three or four, by our arithmetic; no study we read sets a number.

Brysbaert (2019) pooled 190 studies: adults read English non-fiction silently at 238 words a minute on average, most between 175 and 300. A 90,000-word book is then a little over six hours of plain reading. The plan below brings it to about 16 hours.

Back to back, six such books fill a year. Weeks slip, and finished books still have returns owing, so we would plan three or four, one at a time. The rest stay simply read.

### Which books deserve the plan?

By our rule, a book that passes three tests:

- it argues something, with evidence, chapter upon chapter;
- you expect to use it, in a field you are entering or a craft you will practise;
- you would mind, a year on, being unable to say what it claimed.

Leave out books read for the story, reference books, and a book whose one idea fits on a page: write the page. To test a book, read chapter 1 and try to write its ten questions. If you find no claim to ask about, read it for pleasure.

## How do you build a self-study plan from a book's chapters?

Let the contents page set the units, and fix every date before you start.

1. **Count the chapters and book the weeks.** Two chapters a week is our working pace. Add an empty week at the middle and another at the end.
2. **Read each chapter with tomorrow's quiz in mind**, a pencil mark beside each claim and each piece of evidence.
3. **Get its ten questions written** that evening: by you, or, where the book's terms allow, drafted by EdProcto's Books page, a study quiz for each chapter you tick. [A whole book as quizzes](https://edprocto.com/guides/a-whole-book-as-quizzes-chapter-by-chapter) walks through that page.
4. **Take the quiz the next day, book shut.** Check each answer, retry the misses, and note the date and the score.
5. **At the halfway point, take a cumulative quiz**: two questions from every chapter so far.
6. **At the end, take a second cumulative quiz** on the whole book.
7. **Return to that quiz a month later and six months later.**

The month comes from Cepeda et al. (2008), who taught facts to more than 1,350 people, reviewed them once after a gap, and tested up to a year later. For a test a year away, the best gap was about 5 to 10% of the year: roughly three to five weeks. The six-month sitting is our own check.

## How do you write the ten questions that carry a chapter?

Write them in four groups: the argument, the evidence, the terms and one thing to disagree with. The split is ours.

| Group | Number | A stem for any chapter | Shape in EdProcto |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The argument | 2 | "Which sentence states what this chapter claims?" | [Multiple choice](https://edprocto.com/templates/mcq) |
| The evidence | 4 | "Which finding does the author rest that claim on?" | Multiple choice or [matching pairs](https://edprocto.com/templates/matching) |
| The terms | 3 | "What does the author call this?" | [One word](https://edprocto.com/templates/one_word), typed |
| The disagreement | 1 | "Which step of the argument is weakest?" | [Choose and justify](https://edprocto.com/templates/justify) |

- **The argument.** Make the wrong options claims the chapter weighs and rejects.
- **The evidence.** Ask what supports the claim and what would follow from it.
- **The terms.** Ask only for words the later chapters lean on.
- **The disagreement.** It has no key but yours. Set the answer you hold today, with your reason as the model. In a study quiz EdProcto marks the choice at once and shows the model reason to compare with yours.

Supplied questions did as well as home-made ones in Weinstein et al. (2010), so let a tool draft the evidence and the terms, and write the argument and the disagreement yourself.

## What does a twelve-chapter book over eight weeks look like?

About fifteen hours, fourteen quizzes and two empty weeks. The example is invented: a generic popular history of 90,000 words in twelve chapters, no real reader, and made-up scores.

Our allowances, to correct after week 1: 45 minutes to read a 7,500-word chapter with a pencil, 15 to write your share of the questions and 12 for a quiz with its retry.

| Week | Read | Quizzes | Minutes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 to 3 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Six chapter quizzes | 432 |
| 4 | Nothing new | Halfway: 12 questions | 15 |
| 5 to 7 | Chapters 7 to 12 | Six chapter quizzes | 432 |
| 8 | Nothing new | End: 24 questions | 30 |
| 12 and 34 | Nothing | The end quiz again, twice | 60 |

The eight weeks come to 909 minutes, the year to 969.

Chapter 6 slips into week 4, which is what an empty week is for. The halfway quiz comes to 8 of 12, with three of the four misses on chapters 1 and 2, the oldest. The end quiz comes to 20 of 24. A month later it is 17 of 24, and the seven misses name three chapters to reopen: one evening, not a second reading.

## How do EdProcto's Books page and study mode fit the plan?

EdProcto is the best tool for this plan when the questions should come from the book's own chapters, because it drafts a quiz for every chapter, checks each answer as you give it, and shows which quiz has waited longest. In Roediger and Karpicke (2006) it was recall, not a second reading, that lasted the week.

- **The Books page.** Give it "A PDF or a Word file up to 15 MB", or paste the text. It splits the book at its headings and lists every chapter, ticked. With three ticked, "Make 3 quizzes" asks Procto AI for eight multiple-choice questions on each, from that chapter alone. Read every draft against the book.
- **Your own two.** "Edit" on a quiz's dashboard row opens the builder, where "Add a question" takes the argument and "Another shape" the disagreement.
- **[Study mode](https://edprocto.com/guides/study-mode-a-quiz-that-explains-each-answer-as-you-go).** "Study" on the map opens a chapter. Press "Check" and the screen says "Right.", "Partly right." or "Not this time." and gives the explanation. The last page sorts what you missed by topic, next to "Retry the 3 you missed".
- **The map.** "Best score" reads "not yet", "go back" (under 50%), "getting there" (50% up to 80%) or "known" (80% and over). It counts whole runs, so a retry leaves it as it stands; dates and latest scores live in your notebook.
- **The cumulative quizzes.** In the builder, set a quiz's kind to "Study quiz" and type two questions a chapter. For the end quiz, "Duplicate this quiz" makes a draft holding the same twelve, titled "… (copy)"; add the second half's twelve.
- **The returns.** "Due for a re-test", on the dashboard, shows a study quiz two days on from your last sitting if the last full run had a miss, and seven days on if it was clean. The month and the six months go in your own calendar: on the day, the end quiz is on the list, and "Take it again" starts all 24.

### Whose book is it?

Its author's and publisher's. Check the terms a book was sold or lent under before any of it is pasted or uploaded anywhere, EdProcto included. Typing your own questions about what you have read is always open. This is not legal advice.

### Which plan the eight weeks need

Twelve chapters at eight questions is 96 written by Procto AI. The Learner plan carries 100 a month, reads PDF and Word files, sets no limit on self-tests, and is where the plans list a whole book with its map. It writes up to 30 questions a day, so tick three chapters at a time; the map keeps a table for each go.

The Free plan carries ten quizzes and 20 written questions a month, from pasted text. Pace it by typing your own questions: with two fixed reading days a week, the fourteen quizzes never put more than ten in one calendar month, and typed questions use none of the 20. Those cover two chapters, pasted on the Books page a day apart. Terms are on the [pricing page](https://edprocto.com/pricing).

## Quick questions

### How do I remember what I read in non-fiction books?

Answer questions on each chapter from memory the day after you read it, and again later. In Roediger and Karpicke (2006), recalling a passage beat rereading it two days and a week on.

### Is it worth taking notes while reading a book?

Yes, if you write them as questions. Pen or keyboard matters little: Flanigan et al. (2024) found a small edge for handwritten lecture notes, and Morehead et al. (2019) no consistent difference.

### What if I fall behind the plan?

Use the empty week, then move every later date back a week. The forecast was the error, as Buehler et al. (1994) would expect: time your next book from this one.

### Will EdProcto write the chapter quizzes for me?

Yes, where the book's terms allow its text to be pasted or uploaded: the Books page makes a study quiz for each chapter you tick. EdProcto's page [for self-learners](https://edprocto.com/solutions/self-learners) shows the rest.

## References

- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. *Journal of Memory and Language, 109*, Article 104047. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047)
- Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67*(3), 366–381. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366)
- Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. *Psychological Science, 19*(11), 1095–1102. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x)
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14*(1), 4–58. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266](https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266)
- Flanigan, A. E., Wheeler, J., Colliot, T., Lu, J., & Kiewra, K. A. (2024). Typed versus handwritten lecture notes and college student achievement: A meta-analysis. *Educational Psychology Review, 36*(3), Article 78. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w)
- Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. *The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15*(1), 133–160. [https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651](https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651)
- Kizilcec, R. F., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., Turkay, S., Williams, J. J., & Tingley, D. (2020). Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117*(26), 14900–14905. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117)
- Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). *Educational Psychology Review, 31*(3), 753–780. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09468-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09468-2)
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. *Psychological Science, 17*(3), 249–255. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x)
- Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. *Psychological Bulletin, 137*(3), 421–442. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022777)
- Stanhope, N., Cohen, G., & Conway, M. A. (1993). Very long-term retention of a novel. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7*(3), 239–256. [https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070308](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070308)
- van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. *Memory & Cognition, 29*(8), 1081–1087. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206376](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206376)
- Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: Rereading, answering questions, and generating questions. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16*(3), 308–316. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020992](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020992)