Instructional Science

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 233–249 | Cite as

Notetaking and review: The research and its implications

  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
Articles

Abstract

Notetaking and review are positively related to academic achievement, but many students record too few notes to benefit fully from these activities. This paper presents ten factors that may constrain notetaking and review, and provides corresponding implications for improving these study behaviors and for conducting further research. Some instructional implications are that students should record more extensive and conceptual notes and that instructors can help students by organizing their presentations, reducing lecture rate, pausing for notetaking, emphasizing key ideas and encouraging alternate frameworks for notetaking and review. Instructors can also facilitate learning by providing learners with notes for review and with knowledge about testing. In addition, instructors should consider the cognitive processing differences among students because certain learners are likely to find notetaking dysfunctional relative to other means of acquisition. The implications for research focus on determining the optimal notetaking and review activities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S. and Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439–444.Google Scholar
  2. Annis, L. F. and Annis, D. B. (April, 1987). Does Practice make perfect? The effects of repetition on student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Annis, L. F. (1979). Effect of cognitive style and learning passage organization on study technique effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology71, 620–626.Google Scholar
  4. Annis, L. F. and Davis, J. K. (1975). Effect of encoding and an external memory device on notetaking. Journal of Experimental Education, 44, 44 4–6.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, W. H. (1956). Study is hard work. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  6. Ash, P. and Carlton, J. (1953). The value of notetaking during film learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 23, 121–125.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, J. E., DiVesta, F. J. and Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in notetaking? Journal of Educational Psychology73, 181–192.Google Scholar
  8. Benton, S. L. and Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Sources of cognitive variation in writing ability. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Benton, S. L. and Kiewra, K. A. (in press). Measuring the organizational aspects of writing ability. Journal of Educational Measurement.Google Scholar
  10. Berliner, D. C. (1969). Effects of test like events and notetaking on learning from lecture instruction. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Berliner, D. C. (1971). Aptitude-treatment interactions in two studies of learning from lecture instruction. Paper presented to American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Bretzing, B. H. and Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology4, 145–153.Google Scholar
  13. Bromage, B. K. and Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 271–278.Google Scholar
  14. Carter, D. E., Spero, A. J. and Walsh, J. A. (1978). A comparison of the visual and aural digit span and the Bender gestalt as discriminations of low achievement in the primary grades. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 194–198.Google Scholar
  15. Carter, J. F. and VanMatre, N. H. (1975). Notetaking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904.Google Scholar
  16. Coats, W. and Smidchens, U. (1966). Audience recall as a function of speaker dynamism. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 189–191.Google Scholar
  17. Collingwood, V. and Hughes, D. C. (1978). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 175–179.Google Scholar
  18. Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 379–386.Google Scholar
  19. Dansereau, D. F. (1978). The development of a learning strategies curriculum. In H. F.O'NeilJr. (Ed.), Learning strategies, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. DiVesta, F. J. and Gray, S. G. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14.Google Scholar
  21. DiVesta, F. J. and Gray, S. G. (1973). Listening and notetaking II. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287.Google Scholar
  22. Dolan, C. (October, 1982). At some colleges, students profit by sparing others from scribbling. The Wall Street Journal, 20, sec. 2, 35(E).Google Scholar
  23. DuBois, N. F. (April, 1987). Training students to become autonomous learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Duchastel, P. C. (1979). Retention of prose materials. The effects of testing. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 299–300.Google Scholar
  25. Duchastel, P. C. (1980). Extension of testing effects on the retention of prose. Psychological Reports, 47, 1062.Google Scholar
  26. Duchastel, P. C., Nungester, R. (1981). Long-term retention of prose following testing. Psychological Reports, 49, 470.Google Scholar
  27. English, H. B., Welborn, E. L. and Killian, C. D. (1934). Studies in substance memorization. Journal of General Psychology, 11, 233–260.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, J. L. and Harris, M. B. (1973). Effects of notetaking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321–325.Google Scholar
  29. Frank, B. M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from a lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669–678.Google Scholar
  30. Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 40, 337–347.Google Scholar
  31. Greene, E. B. (1928). Lecture vs. reading. Genetic Psychology, 4, 457–560.Google Scholar
  32. Hartley, J., (1983). Notetaking research: Resetting the scoreboard. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 36, 13–14.Google Scholar
  33. Hartley, J. and Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educational Review, 20, 30 3–7.Google Scholar
  34. Hartley, J. and Davies, I. K. (1978). Notetaking: A critical review. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 15, 207–224.Google Scholar
  35. Hartley, J. and Fuller, H. (1971). The use of slides in lectures: An exploratory study. Visual Education, August/September, 39–41.Google Scholar
  36. Hartley, J. and Marshall, S. (1974). On notes and notetaking. Universities Quarterly, 28, 225–235.Google Scholar
  37. Hebb, D. O. (1966). A Textbook of Psychology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  38. Howe, M. J. (1970). Notetaking strategy, review and long-term retention of verbal information. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 285.Google Scholar
  39. Howe, M. J. (1977). In M. J.Howe (Ed.), Adult learning: Psychological research and applications. London, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Hult, R. E., Cohn, S. and Potter, D. (1984). An analysis of student notetaking effectiveness and learning outcome in the college lecture setting. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 11, 175–181.Google Scholar
  41. Hunt, E., Frost, N. and Lunneborg, C. (1973). Individual differences in cognition: A new approach to intelligence. In G.Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 7, 87–120). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C. and Lewis, J. (1985). What does it mean to be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology, 7, 194–227.Google Scholar
  43. Jonassen, D. H. (1984). Effects of generative text processing strategies on recall and retention. Human Learning3, 241–256.Google Scholar
  44. Kiewra, K. A. (1984a). The relationship between notetaking over an extended period and actual course-related achievement. College Student Journal, 17, 381–385.Google Scholar
  45. Kiewra, K. A. (1984b). Implications for notetaking based on relationships between notetaking variables and achievement measures. Reading Improvement, 21, 145–149.Google Scholar
  46. Kiewra, K. A. (1984c). Acquiring effective notetaking skills: An alternative to professional notetaking. Journal of Reading, 27, 299–302.Google Scholar
  47. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, and attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73–77.Google Scholar
  48. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students' notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.Google Scholar
  49. Kiewra, K. A. (1985c). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing altenative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.Google Scholar
  50. Kiewra, K. A. (1985d). Providing the instructor's notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20, 33–39.Google Scholar
  51. Kiewra, K. A. (1985e). The examination of the encoding and external storage functions of notetaking for factual and higher-order performance. College Student Journal, 19, 394–397.Google Scholar
  52. Kiewra, K. A. (in press). Cognitive aspects of autonomous notetaking: Control processes, learning strategies and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist.Google Scholar
  53. Kiewra, K. A. and Benton, S. L. (1985a). The effects of higher-order review questions with feedback on achievement among leamers who take notes or receive the instructor's notes. Human Learning, 4, 225–231.Google Scholar
  54. Kiewra, K. A. and Benton, S. L. (in press). The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  55. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L. and Lewis, L. B. (in press). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information processing ability. Journal of Instructional Psychology.Google Scholar
  56. Kiewra, K. A. and Fletcher, H. J. (1984). The relationship between notetaking variables and achievement measures. Human Learning, 3, 273–280.Google Scholar
  57. Kiewra, K. A. and Frank, B. M. (in press). The encoding and external storage effects of personal lecture notes, skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners. Journal of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  58. Kiewra, K. A. and Frank, B. M. (1986). Cognitive style: Effects of structure at acquisition and testing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 253–263.Google Scholar
  59. Knight, L. J. and McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance, note taking and review on memory for a lecture: Encoding vs. external storage function of notes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 52–61.Google Scholar
  60. Ladas, H. S. (1977). Educational ethology and experiments in vacuo: Some implications for research and education. Educational Psychologist, 12, 215–219.Google Scholar
  61. Ladas, H. S. (1980). Notetaking on lectures: An information processing approach. Educational Psychologist, 15, 44–53.Google Scholar
  62. Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 93–99.Google Scholar
  63. MacManaway, L. A. (1968). Using lecture scripts. University Quarterly, 22, 327–336.Google Scholar
  64. Maddox, H. and Hoole, E. (1975). Performance decrement in the lecture. Educational Review, 28, 17 30.Google Scholar
  65. Maqsud, M. (1980). Effects of personal lecture notes and teacher notes on recall of university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 289–294.Google Scholar
  66. Moore, J. C. (1968). Cueing for selective notetaking. Journal of Experimental Education, 36, 69–72.Google Scholar
  67. Palmatier, R. A. and Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215–218.Google Scholar
  68. Pauk, W. (1978). Why take notes? Reading World, 18, 206–207.Google Scholar
  69. Peters, D. L. (1972). Effects of notetaking and rate of presentation on short-term Objective Test performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 276–280.Google Scholar
  70. Peterson, H. A., Ellis, M., Toohill, N. and Kloess, P. (1952). Some measurements of the effects of reviews. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 65–72.Google Scholar
  71. Pinney, R. H. (1969). Presentational behaviors related to success in teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  72. Rickards, J. P. and Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136–143.Google Scholar
  73. Robin, A., Fox, R. M., Martello, J. and Archable, C. (1977). Teaching notetaking skills to under-achieving college students. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 81–85.Google Scholar
  74. Schultz, C. B. and DiVesta, F. J. (1972). Effects of passage organization and notetaking on the selection of clustering strategies and on recall of textual materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 244–252.Google Scholar
  75. Shimmerlick, S. M. and Nolan, J. D. (1976). Organization and the recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 779–786.Google Scholar
  76. Spitzer, H. F. (1939). Studies in retention. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 641–656.Google Scholar
  77. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning: The componential analyses of human abilities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Sternberg, R. J. (1980). Sketch of a componential theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 573–584.Google Scholar
  79. Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Individual differences in cognition: Some implications for measurement. In B.S.Plake (Ed.), Buros-Nebraska symposium on testing (Vol. 1, 39–60). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Sullivan, A. M., Andrews, E. A., Hollinghurst, F., Maddigan, R. and Noseworthy, C. M. (1976). The relative effectiveness of instructional television. Interchange, 7, 46–51.Google Scholar
  81. Thomas, G. S. (1978). Use of students' notes and lecture summaries as study guides for recall. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 316–319.Google Scholar
  82. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Tversky, B. G. (1973). Encoding processes in recognition and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 275–287.Google Scholar
  84. Ware, J. E., Jr. (1974). The doctor fox effect: An experimental study of the effectiveness of lecture presentation and the validity of student ratings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  85. Weinstein, C. E. (1982). A metacurriculum for remediating learning strategies deficits in academically unprepared students. In L.Noel and R.Levitz (Eds.), How to succeed with academically unprepared students. Iowa City: American College Testing Service National Center for Advancing Educational Practice.Google Scholar
  86. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. and Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUtah State UniversityLoganU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations