Review and Process Effects of Spontaneous Note-Taking on Text Comprehension.

This study examines how quantitative and qualitative differences in spontaneously taken notes are related to text comprehension in combination with reviewing or not reviewing previously made notes. High school graduates (N = 226) were allowed to take notes in any way they desired while reading a philosophical text. Approximately half the participants were told that they could review their notes during writing tasks designed to measure the ability to define, compare, and evaluate text content. The other half of the participants answered the subsequent questions without their notes. The process of taking notes was rated on the basis of note quality and quantity. The results revealed significant review and process effects in spontaneous note-taking. Reviewing the notes during essay-writing generally resulted in good performance in an exam calling for deep-level text comprehension. However, this review effect was mainly limited to detailed learning instead of making one's own inferences. Results pertaining to note quality indicated that the participants who summarized the content of the text resulted in better performance in all tasks in comparison with those who produced notes following the text order or verbatim notes. The amount of note-taking was also positively related to text comprehension. The discussion focuses upon the situational appropriateness of note-taking effects that pose challenges to educators. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

[1]  K. Lonka,et al.  Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts , 1999 .

[2]  Erik De Corte,et al.  International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology , 1996 .

[3]  Kirsti Lonka,et al.  Why Does the Length of an Essay-Type Answer Contribute to Examination Marks?. , 1989 .

[4]  John R. Kirby,et al.  Students' Approaches to Summarisation. , 1991 .

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

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

[7]  C. Kardash,et al.  Effects of Time of Review and Test Expectancy on Learning from Text. , 1989 .

[8]  R. Mayer,et al.  Generative Effects of Note-Taking during Science Lectures. , 1986 .

[9]  Stephen L. Benton,et al.  Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes , 1993 .

[10]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[11]  Suzanne Mannes,et al.  Strategic processing of text. , 1994 .

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

[13]  P. V. Meter,et al.  College Students' Theory of Note-Taking Derived From Their Perceptions of Note-Taking , 1994 .

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

[15]  E. Leskinen,et al.  Selecting students for medical school: What predicts success during basic science studies? A cognitive approach , 1996 .

[16]  W. Kintsch.  Learning From Text , 1986, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

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

[18]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Knowledge Organization and Text Organization , 1987 .

[19]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  The psychology of written composition , 1987 .

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

[21]  Suzanne E. Wade,et al.  Effect of Self-Selected Study Methods on Learning. , 1989 .

[22]  Jan D. Vermunt,et al.  Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies , 1995 .

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

[24]  R. W. Kulhavy,et al.  Spontaneous and Imposed Study Tactics in Learning Prose , 1990 .

[25]  W. Kintsch.  Text comprehension, memory, and learning. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[26]  C. Kardash,et al.  Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text , 1991 .

[27]  Sharon Tkacz,et al.  Student study techniques and the generation effect. , 1994 .

[28]  Nelson F. DuBois,et al.  Note-taking functions and techniques. , 1991 .

[29]  Kenneth A. Kiewra,et al.  Providing study notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. , 1988 .

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

[31]  K. Lonka,et al.  Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education , 1995 .