Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of Students’ Note-Taking Activities and Characteristics of Their Learning Performance in Two Types of Online Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Note Taking Activities in E-Learning Environments

Part of the book series: Behaviormetrics: Quantitative Approaches to Human Behavior ((BQAHB,volume 11))

  • 378 Accesses

Abstract

Aspects of learning behavior during two types of university courses, a blended learning course and a fully online course, were examined using a note-taking activity. The contribution of students’ characteristics and styles of learning to the note-taking activity and learning performance were analyzed, and the relationships between the two types of courses were compared using causal analysis techniques. In addition, lexical analysis of the contents of notes taken was introduced. Features of notes taken, such as the number of terms, the word ratios of students’ notes and the degree of coverage of the lecturer’s notes were compared. The results of the evaluation of the two types of learning styles were summarized by determining the relationships between students’ characteristics and metrics of the contents of notes taken. The metrics were significantly different between the two learning styles. The contributions of students’ characteristics to learning performance were also different. These results provide points to consider for the design and organization of the two types of learning.

Originally published as International Journal of Distance Education Technology Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 47–64, 2017 [1].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nakayama M, Mutsuura K, Yamamoto H (2017) Effectiveness of student’s note-taking activities and characteristics of their learning performance in two types of online learning. Int J Distance Educ Technol 15:47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. The University of Sheffield: E-learning and technology enhanced learning? Guideline for academics. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets/toolkit/teaching/e-learning/tel

  3. Seaton DT, Nesterko S, Mullaney T, Reich J, Ho A (2014) Characterizing video use in the catalogue of MITx MOOCs. ELearning Papers (37):33–41 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Seaton DT, Bergner Y, Chuang I, Mitros P, Pritchard DE (2014) Who does what in a massive open online course? Commun ACM 57(4):58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hill P (2012) Online educational delivery models: a descriptive view. Educause Rev, 85–97 November/December

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nakayama M, Kanazawa H, Yamamoto H (2009) Detecting incomplete learners in a blended learning environment among japanese university students. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 4(1):47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferguson R, Clow D (2015) Consistent commitment: patterns of engagement across time in massive open online courses (moocs). J Learn Anal 2:55–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chibelushi C, Sharp B, Salter A (2004) A text mining approach to tracking elements of decision making: a pilot study. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on natural language understanding and cognitive science (NLUCS2004), pp 51–62

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buyarski CA, Landis C (2014) Using and eportfolio to assess the outcomes of a first-year seminar: student narrative and authentic assessment. Int J ePortfolio 4:49–60

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nakayama M, Yamamoto H, Santiago R (2011) Online learning management and learners’ behavior: A case study of online learning in Japan. In: Lazarinis F, Green S, Pearson E (eds) Developing and utilizing e-learning applications (Chap 9), pp 155–174. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bonner JM, Holiday WG (2006) How college science students engage in note-taking strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:786–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bauer A, Koendinger K (2006) Pasting and encoding: Note-taking in online courses. In: Proceedings of ICALT’06. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2006.1652559

  13. Çetingöz D (2010) University students’ learning process of note-taking strategies. Procedia: Soc Behav Sci 2:4098–4108. https://doi.org/10.10160/j.sbspro.2010.03.647

  14. Kiewra KA (1985) Students’ note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemp Educ Psychol 10:378–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiewra KA (1989) A review of note-taking: the encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educ Psychol Rev 1(2):147–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiewra KA, Benton SL, Kim SI, Risch N, Christensen M (1995) Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemp Educ Psychol 20:172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nye PA, Crooks TJ, Powley M, Tripp G (1984) Student note-taking related to university examination performance. High Educ 13:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakayama M, Mutsuura K, Yamamoto H (2014) Impact of learner’s characteristics and learning behaviour on learning performance during a fully online course. Electric J E-Learn 12(Issue 4):394–408

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weener P (1974) Note taking and student verbalization as instrumental learning activities. Instr Sci 3:51–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meter P, Yokoi L, Pressley M (1994) College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. J Educ Psychol 86:323–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Piolat A, Olive T, Kellogg RT (2005) Cognitive effort during note taking. Appl Cogn Psychol 19:291–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Makany T, Kemp J, Dror IE (2009) Optimising the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning. Br J Edu Technol 40:619–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tynajä P (1999) Towards expert knowledge? a comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. Int J Educ Res 31:357–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreno R, Mayer RE (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol 91:358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Penn State Learning: Listening and note taking survey. http://penstatelearning.psu.edu/resources/study-tips/note-taking/survey

  26. Tran TAT, Lawson M (2001) Students’ procedures for reviewing lecture notes. Int Electron J 2:278–293

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kobayashi K (2005) What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? a meta-analytic examination. Contemp Educ Psychol 30:242–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kobayashi K (2006) Conditional effects of interventions in note-taking procedures on learning: a meta-analysis. Jpn Psychol Res 48:109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Austin JL, Lee M, Carr JP (2004) The effects of guided notes on undergraduates students’ recording of lecture content. J Instr Psychol 31:314–320

    Google Scholar 

  30. Austin JL, Lee M, Thibeault M, Carr JE, Bailey J (2002) Effects of guided notes on university student’s responding and recall of information. J Behav Educ 11:243–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Luckner N, Purgathofer P (2014) Explorative design as an approach to understanding social online learning tools. Int J Adv Intell Syst 7:493–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Samuleviciute E (2009) How to improve usability of digital note-taking systems. In: Proceedings of IDT workshop on interesting results in computer science and engineering, (IRCSE’09). http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/ct3340/ht09/ADMINISTRATION/IRCSE09-submissions/ircse09_submission_21.pdf

  33. Moos DC (2009) Note-taking while learning hypermedia: cognitive and motivational considearations. Comput Hum Behav 25:1120–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Clark RC, Mayer RE (2011) e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Pfeiffer, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  36. Preverly ST, Brobst K, Graham M, Shaw R (2003) College adults are not good at self-regulation: a study of the relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking. J Educ Psychol 95:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tam M (2000) Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for transforming distance learning. Educ Technol & Soc 3(2):50–60

    Google Scholar 

  38. Preverly ST, Ramaswamy V, Brown C, Sumowski J, Alidoost M, Garner J (2007) What predicts skill in lecture note taking? J Educ Psychol 99:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nakayama M, Mutsuura K, Yamamoto H (2011) Evaluation of student’s notes in a blended learning course. Int J Comput Archit Appl 1(4):1080–1089

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nakayama M, Yamamoto H, Santiago R (2007) The impact of learner characteristics on learning performance in hybrid courses among Japanese students. Electron J E-Learn 5(3):195–206

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nakayama M, Yamamoto H, Santiago R (2008) Impact of information literacy and learner characteristics on learning behavior of Japanese students in on line courses. Int J Case Method Res Appl XX(4):403–415

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goldberg L (1999) A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Pers Psychol Eur 7:7–28

    Google Scholar 

  43. IPIP (2001) A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. http://ipip.ori.org

  44. Fujii Y (2007) Development of a scale to evaluate the information literacy level of young people -comparison of junior high school students in japan and northern europe. Jpn J Educ Technol 30(4):387–395

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nakayama M, Mutsuura K, Yamamoto H (2016) Note-taking evaluation using network illustrations based on term co-occurence in a blended learning environment. Int J Distance Educ Technol 14:77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modelling, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jenatabadi H (2015) An overview of path analysis: mediation analysis concept in structural equation modeling (2015). arxiv.org. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.03441.pdf

  48. Toyoda H (2007) Kyo Bunsan Kouzou Bunseki [Amos Hen]. Tokyo Syoseki, Tokyo, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nakayama M, Mutsuura K, Yamamoto H (2013) Effectiveness of note-taking skills and student’s characteristics on learning performance in online courses. In: Ivanova M, Nakayama M (eds.) Proceedings of 4th international workshop, intaractive environments and emerging technologies for eLearning (IEETeL 2013), vol 991, pp 13–21. CEUR, http://ceur-ws.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKEN, B-26282046: 2014-2016).

This chapter is reprinted of a journal paper by permission of the IGI Global.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Communications Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Professor Minoru Nakayama

  2. Shinshu University, Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan

    Professor Emeritus Kouichi Mutsuura & Professor Emeritus Hiroh Yamamoto

Authors
  1. Professor Minoru Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Professor Emeritus Kouichi Mutsuura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Professor Emeritus Hiroh Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minoru Nakayama .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Communications Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Minoru Nakayama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nakayama, M., Mutsuura, K., Yamamoto, H. (2021). Effectiveness of Students’ Note-Taking Activities and Characteristics of Their Learning Performance in Two Types of Online Learning. In: Nakayama, M. (eds) Note Taking Activities in E-Learning Environments. Behaviormetrics: Quantitative Approaches to Human Behavior, vol 11. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6104-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation