Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Note Taking on Computer-Based Graphic Organizers

Previous research on graphic organizer (GO) note taking has shown that this method is most effective when the GO is presented to the student partially complete with provided notes. This study extended prior research by investigating the effects of provided note type (summary vs. verbatim) and GO bite size (large vs. small) on the transfer performance and note taking behavior of college students working with a set of partially complete computer-based GOs. As hypothesized, a note-type by bite size interaction occurred on transfer performance. Large-bites GOs were optimal when containing summary notes, but not when containing verbatim notes. In contrast, small-bites GOs were optimal when containing verbatim notes, but not summary notes. Additionally, the type of notes provided to students affected the quality of their notes taken. The findings are explained from the perspective of cognitive load theory and the map shock hypothesis.

[1]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. , 1996 .

[2]  J. Hartley.  Notetaking Research: Resetting the Scoreboard , 1983 .

[3]  Andrew D. Katayama,et al.  Online Notes: Differential Effects of Studying Complete or Partial Graphically Organized Notes , 2003 .

[4]  R. Mayer,et al.  The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning , 1992 .

[5]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing , 1992 .

[6]  Douglas F. Kauffman,et al.  Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays , 1999 .

[7]  Kirsti Lonka,et al.  Spontaneous study strategies and the quality of knowledge construction , 1997 .

[8]  Kenneth A. Kiewra.  A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond , 1989 .

[9]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Obtaining more out of less text in CBI: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control strategy , 1988 .

[10]  Andrew D. Katayama,et al.  Increasing Text Comprehension and Graphic Note Taking Using a Partial Graphic Organizer , 2006 .

[11]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  The Effect of Animated Node-Link Displays on Information Recall , 2000 .

[12]  Ann M. Quade,et al.  An Assessment of Retention and Depth of Processing Associated with Notetaking Using Traditional Pencil and Paper and an On-line Notepad during Computer-Delivered Instruction. , 1996 .

[13]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Comparison of Texts and their Summaries: Memorial Consequences. , 1980 .

[14]  K. Lonka,et al.  Review and Process Effects of Spontaneous Note-Taking on Text Comprehension. , 1999, Contemporary educational psychology.

[15]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Computational Efficiency through Visual Argument: Do Graphic Organizers Communicate Relations in Text Too Effectively?. , 1994 .

[16]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[17]  P. Chandler,et al.  Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory , 1991 .

[18]  Stephen L. Benton,et al.  Effects of Note-Taking Format and Study Technique on Recall and Relational Performance , 1995 .

[19]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. , 1995 .

[20]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[21]  R. Mayer,et al.  A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. , 2000 .

[22]  K. Lonka,et al.  The effect of study strategies on learning from text , 1994 .

[23]  Howard J. Sullivan,et al.  Audio and Text Density in Computer-Based Instruction , 2000 .

[24]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. , 2001 .

[25]  Douglas Kauffman.  Self-Regulated Learning in Web-Based Environments: Instructional Tools Designed to Facilitate Cognitive Strategy Use, Metacognitive Processing, and Motivational Beliefs , 2004 .

[26]  Andrew D. Katayama,et al.  Getting Students “Partially” Involved in Note-Taking Using Graphic Organizers , 2000 .

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

[28]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites? , 2003 .

[29]  R. Mayer,et al.  When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? , 2001 .

[30]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[31]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[32]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animations need narrations : an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis , 1991 .

[33]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[34]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

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

[36]  Judith J. Lambrecht,et al.  A comparison of on-line and traditional paper and pencil notetaking methods during computer-delivered instruction , 1995 .

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

[38]  David White,et al.  Effects of Contiguity and Feature Animation in Computer-Based Geography Instruction , 2005 .

[39]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[40]  Francis J. Di Vesta,et al.  Listening and Note Taking: II. Immediate and Delayed Recall as Functions of Variations in Thematic Continuity, Note Taking, and Length of Listening-Review Intervals. , 1973 .

[41]  R. Mayer,et al.  Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening , 2002 .

[42]  Matthew T. McCrudden,et al.  Exploring Differences in Students' Copy-and-Paste Decision Making and Processing: A Mixed-Methods Study , 2005 .

[43]  R. Mayer,et al.  Maximizing Constructivist Learning From Multimedia Communications by Minimizing Cognitive Load , 1999 .

[44]  Sharon A. Shrock,et al.  The Effects of Required and Optional Computer-Based Note Taking on Achievement and Instructional Completion Time , 1996 .

[45]  Susan Bell Trickett,et al.  Note-Taking for Self-Explanation and Problem Solving , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[46]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[47]  Andrew D. Katayama,et al.  Examining the Effects of Notetaking Format on Achievement When Students Construct and Study Computerized Notes , 2001 .

[48]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..