Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 147–172 | Cite as

A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond

  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
Article

Abstract

This review article investigates the encoding and storage functions of note-taking. The encoding function suggests that the process of taking notes, which are not reviewed, is facilitative. Research specifying optimal note-taking behaviors is discussed as are several means for facilitating note-taking, such as viewing a lecture multiple times, note-taking on a provided framework, or generative note-taking activities. The storage function suggests that the review of notes also is facilitative. Research addressing particular review behaviors, such as organization and elaboration, is discussed as are the advantages of reviewing provided notes, borrowed notes, or notes organized in a matrix form. In addition, cognitive factors related to note-taking and review are discussed. The article concludes with an alternative means for defining and investigating the functions of note-taking, and with implications for education and for research.

Key words

notetaking studying academic performance 

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.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 439–444.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. H., and Armbruster, B. (1989). The value of taking notes during lecture. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  3. Annis, L. F., and Annis, D. B. (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., April 1987.Google Scholar
  4. Annis, L. F., and Davis, J. K. (1975). Effect of encoding and an external memory device on notetaking.J. Exper. Educat. 44: 4–6.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, J. E., DiVesta, F. J., and Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in notetaking?J. Educat. Psychol. 73: 181–192.Google Scholar
  6. Barnett, J. E., and Freud, D. (1985). Prior knowledge and the generative theory of notetaking. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Benton, S. L., and Kiewra, K. A. (1989). The effect of information acquisition on measures of writing performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Berliner, D. C. (1969). Effects of test-like events and notetaking on learning from lecture instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Berliner, D. C. (1971). Aptitude-treatment interactions in two studies of learning from lecture instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York, April 1971.Google Scholar
  10. Bromage, B. K., and Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text.J. Educat. Psychol. 78: 271–278.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, J. F., and Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Notetaking versus note having.J. Educat. Psychol. 67: 900–904.Google Scholar
  12. Collingwood, V., and Hughes, D. C. (1978). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement.J. Educat. Psychol. 70: 175–179.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, L. K., and Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In Pressley, M., Levin, J. R. (eds.),Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 87–126.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between lecture notes and quiz papers.J. Educat. Res. 12: 379–386.Google Scholar
  15. DiVesta, F. J., and Gray, S. G. (1972). Listening and notetaking.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 8–14.Google Scholar
  16. DiVesta, F. J., and Gray, S. G. (1973). Listening and notetaking II.J. Educat. Psychol. 64: 278–287.Google Scholar
  17. DuBois, N. F., and Kiewra, K. A. (1989). The development of a multi-level research program to evaluate the effects of strategy training on study behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 1989.Google Scholar
  18. DuBois, N. F., Kiewra, K. A., and Fraley, J. (1988). Differential effects of a learning strategy course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., and Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information.J. Educat. Psychol. 77: 522–532.Google Scholar
  20. English, H. B., Welborn, E. L., and Killian, C. D. (1934). Studies in substance memorization.J. Gen. Psychol. 11: 233–260.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, J. L., and Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note taking and review on recall.J. Educat. Psychol. 65: 321–325.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, J. L., and Harris, M. B. (1974). Effect of notetaking preference and type of notes taken on memory.Psychol. Rep. 35: 384–385.Google Scholar
  23. Flexser, A. J., and Tulving, E. (1978). Retrieval independence in recognition and recall.Psychol. Rev. 85: 153–171.Google Scholar
  24. Frank, B. M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from a lecture.Am. Educat. Res. J. 21: 669–678.Google Scholar
  25. Hartley, J. (1983). Notetaking research: Resetting the scoreboard.Bull. Brit. Psychol. Sic. 36: 13–14.Google Scholar
  26. Hartley, J., and Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing.Educat. Rev. 20: 3–7.Google Scholar
  27. Hartley, J., and Fuller, H. (1971). The use of slides in lectures: An exploratory study.Vis. Educat. August/September, 39–41.Google Scholar
  28. Hartley, J., and Marshall, S. (1974). On notes and notetaking.Univer. Quart. 28: 225–235.Google Scholar
  29. Howe, M. J. (1970a). Using students' notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter.J. Educat. Res. 64: 61–63.Google Scholar
  30. Howe, M. J. (1970b). Notetaking strategy, review and long-term retention of verbal information.J. Educat. Res. 63: 285.Google Scholar
  31. Kardash, C. M., and Kroeker, T. L. (1988). Effects of time of review and test expectancy on learning from text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988.Google Scholar
  32. Kiewra, K. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 8: 366–374.Google Scholar
  33. Kiewra, K. A. (1984a). The relationship between notetaking over an extended period and actual course-related achievement.Col. Stud. J. 17: 381–385.Google Scholar
  34. Kiewra, K. A. (1984b). Acquiring effective notetaking skills: An alternative to professional notetaking.J. Read. 27: 299–302.Google Scholar
  35. Kiewra, K. A. (1984c). Implications for notetaking based on relationships between notetaking variables and achievement measures.Read. Improv. 21: 145–149.Google Scholar
  36. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative.Educat. Psychol. 20: 23–32.Google Scholar
  37. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). The examination of the encoding and external storage functions of notetaking for factual and higher-order performance.Col. Stud. J. 19: 394–397.Google Scholar
  38. Kiewra, K. A. (1985c). Students' notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 10: 378–386.Google Scholar
  39. Kiewra, K. A. (1985d). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, and attendance at a lecture.Hum. Learn. 4: 73–77.Google Scholar
  40. Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications.Instruct. Sci. 16: 233–249.Google Scholar
  41. Kiewra, K. A. (1988). Cognitive aspects of autonomous notetaking: Control processes, learning strategies and prior knowledge.Educat. Psychol. 23: 39–56.Google Scholar
  42. Kiewra, K. A., and Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 13: 33–44.Google Scholar
  43. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Christensen, M., Kim, S., and Lindberg, N. (1989a). The effects of note-taking format and study technique and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 1989.Google Scholar
  44. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., and Lewis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information processing ability.J. Instruct. Psychol. 14: 110–117.Google Scholar
  45. Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Chritensen, M., Kim, S., and Lindberg, N. (1989b). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 1989.Google Scholar
  46. Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., and McShane, A. (1988a). Providing study notes: A comparison of three types of notes for review.J. Educat. Psychol. 80: 595–597.Google Scholar
  47. Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., and Roskelley, D. (1988b). Theoretical and practical aspects of taking, reviewing and borrowing conventional, skeletal and matrix lecture notes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988.Google Scholar
  48. Kiewra, K. A., and Fletcher, H. J. (1984). The relationship between notetaking variables and achievement measures.Hum. Learn. 3: 273–280.Google Scholar
  49. Kiewra, K. A., and Frank, B. M. (1986). Cognitive style: Effects of structure at acquisition and testing.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 11: 253–263.Google Scholar
  50. Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christian, D., Dyreson, M., and McShane, A. (1988c). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition and note-taking on learning from videotaped instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988.Google Scholar
  51. Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S., Roskelley, D., and Lindberg, N. (1989c). The effects of structured and unstructured repetition of videotaped instruction. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  52. Klemm, W. R. (1976). Efficiency of handout “skeleton” notes in student learning.Improv. Col. Univers. Tech. 24: 10–12.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Canad. J. Behav. Sci. 18: 52–61.Google Scholar
  54. Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students.J. Educat. Res. 77: 93–99.Google Scholar
  55. Maddox, H., and Hoole, E. (1975). Performance decrement in the lecture.Educat. Rev. 28: 17–30.Google Scholar
  56. Maqsud, M. (1980). Effects of personal lecture notes and teacher notes on recall of university students.Birt. j. Educat. Psychol. 50: 289–294.Google Scholar
  57. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension.Educat. Psychol. 19: 30–42.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Techniques that foster active reading strategies. In Rohwer, W. D. (chair),Toward a Model of Autonomous Learning. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987.Google Scholar
  59. Moore, J. C. (1968). Cueing for selective notetaking.J. Exp. Educat. 36: 69–72.Google Scholar
  60. Palmatier, R. A., and Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students.J. Read. 18: 215–218.Google Scholar
  61. Peper, R. J., and Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note-taking as a generative activity.J. Educat. Psychol. 70: 514–522.Google Scholar
  62. Peper, R. J., and Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures.J. Educat. Psychol. 78: 34–38.Google Scholar
  63. Peters, D. L. (1972). Effects of notetaking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test performance.J. Educat. Psychol. 63: 276–280.Google Scholar
  64. Peterson, H. A., Ellis, M., Toohill, N., and Kloess, P. (1952). Some measurements of the effects of reviews.J. Educat. Psychol. 26: 65–72.Google Scholar
  65. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., and O'Sullivan, J. T. (1985). Children's metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies. In Forrest, D. L., Pressley, M., MacKinnon, G. E., and Waller, T. G. (eds.),Metacognition, Cognition and Human Performance: Vol. 1, Theoretical Perspectives Academic, New York, pp. 111–153.Google Scholar
  66. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., and Schneider, W. (1989). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In Vasta, R., and Whitehurst, (eds.),Annals of Child Development, Vol. 4, JAI, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  67. Rickards, J. P., and Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in notetaking.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 3: 136–143.Google Scholar
  68. Robin, A., Fox, R. M., Martello, J., and Archable, C. (1977). Teaching notetaking skills to under-achieving college students.J. Educat. Res. 71: 81–85.Google Scholar
  69. Shimmerlick, S. M., and Nolan, J. D. (1976). Organization and the recall of prose.J. Educat. Psychol. 68: 779–786.Google Scholar
  70. Thomas, G. S. (1978). Use of students' notes and lecture summaries as study guides for recall.J. Educat. Res. 71: 316–319.Google Scholar
  71. Thompson, D. M., and Tulving, E. (1970). Associate encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.J. Exp. Psychol. 86: 255–262.Google Scholar
  72. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., and Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications.Rev. Educat. Res. 47: 1–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincoln

Personalised recommendations