Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall.

Three experiments examined note-taking strategies and their relation to recall. In Experiment 1, participants were instructed either to take organized lecture notes or to try and transcribe the lecture, and they either took their notes by hand or typed them into a computer. Those instructed to transcribe the lecture using a computer showed the best recall on immediate tests, and the subsequent experiments focused on note-taking using computers. Experiment 2 showed that taking organized notes produced the best recall on delayed tests. In Experiment 3, however, when participants were given the opportunity to study their notes, those who had tried to transcribe the lecture showed better recall on delayed tests than those who had taken organized notes. Correlational analyses of data from all 3 experiments revealed that for those who took organized notes, working memory predicted note-quantity, which predicted recall on both immediate and delayed tests. For those who tried to transcribe the lecture, in contrast, only note-quantity was a consistent predictor of recall. These results suggest that individuals who have poor working memory (an ability traditionally thought to be important for note-taking) can still take effective notes if they use a note-taking strategy (transcribing using a computer) that can help level the playing field for students of diverse cognitive abilities.

[1]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[2]  Joanna K. Garner,et al.  What predicts skill in lecture note taking , 2007 .

[3]  Gail Salaway,et al.  The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008 , 2007 .

[4]  Keiichi Kobayashi,et al.  What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination , 2005 .

[5]  R. T. Kellogg,et al.  Cognitive effort during note taking , 2005 .

[6]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Rereading Effects Depend on Time of Test. , 2005 .

[7]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Deep‐Level Comprehension of Science Texts: The Role of the Reader and the Text , 2005 .

[8]  D. McNamara.  SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training , 2004 .

[9]  Renata Whurr.  Writing and long term memory: Evidence for a “translation” hypothesis , 2003, Brain and Language.

[10]  Robert L. Williams,et al.  Notetaking in College Classes: Student Patterns and Instructional Strategies , 2003 .

[11]  Annie Piolat,et al.  Suppressing visual feedback in written composition: Effects on processing demands and coordination of the writing processes , 2002 .

[12]  Janet Rogers,et al.  Relationships between handwriting and keyboarding performance of sixth-grade students. , 2002, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[13]  D. McNamara.  Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. , 2001, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[14]  James R. Squire,et al.  Research on Written Composition , 2001 .

[15]  David C. Caverly,et al.  Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research , 2000 .

[16]  John D. Morris,et al.  THE EFFECT OF NOTE TAKING ON NINTH GRADE STUDENTS' COMPREHENSION , 2000 .

[17]  Bonnie B. Armbruster.  Taking notes from lectures. , 2000 .

[18]  T. Mico,et al.  Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies , 1996 .

[19]  E. Cohn,et al.  Notetaking, Working Memory, and Learning in Principles of Economics , 1995 .

[20]  R. Bjork.  Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. , 1994 .

[21]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .

[22]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Cognition and Instruction: Their Historic Meeting within Educational Psychology. , 1992 .

[23]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation , 1992 .

[24]  Sung-Il Kim,et al.  A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text , 1989 .

[25]  Patricia Dunkel,et al.  The heuristic of lecture notetaking: Perceptions of American & international students regarding the value & practice of notetaking , 1989 .

[26]  C. Marlin “Lin” Brown.  Comparison of Typing and Handwriting in “Two-Finger Typists” , 1988 .

[27]  Stephen L. Benton,et al.  The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking , 1988 .

[28]  Stephen L. Benton,et al.  Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement. , 1987 .

[29]  Fergus I. M. Craik,et al.  Specific enhancement effects associated with word generation , 1986 .

[30]  Kenneth A. Kiewra.  Investigating Notetaking and Review: A Depth of Processing Alternative , 1985 .

[31]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[32]  Agr McClelland,et al.  LEVELS OF PROCESSING , 1980 .

[33]  Raymond W. Kulhavy,et al.  Notetaking and depth of processing , 1979 .

[34]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[35]  M. Harris,et al.  Effect of Note Taking and Review on Recall. , 1973 .

[36]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[37]  F. di Vesta,et al.  Listening and note taking. , 1972, Journal of educational psychology.

[38]  C. C. Crawford.  Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking. , 1925 .

[39]  C. C. Crawford.  The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. , 1925 .