Instructional Science

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 45–67 | Cite as

Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement

  • Linlin Luo
  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
  • Lydia Samuelson


Note taking has been categorized as a two-stage process: the recording of notes and the review of notes. We contend that note taking might best involve a three-stage process where the missing stage is revision. This study investigated the benefits of revising lecture notes and addressed two questions: First, is revision more effective than non-revision? Second, what revision method is best? Experiment 1 addressed the first question by comparing the performance of participants who revise or recopy lecture notes. Experiment 2 addressed the second question by investigating whether revision was best done (a) during pauses throughout the lecture or one equally-timed pause after the lecture, and (b) with a partner or alone. Dependent measures were original and additional notes and fact and relationship test scores. Results upheld three effects: (a) a modest revision effect—revisers recorded more additional notes and achieved somewhat higher scores on relationship items than re-copiers, (b) a pause effect—those revising during pauses outperformed those revising after the lecture on the notes and achievement measures, and (c) a modest partner effect—those revising with partners recorded more original notes than those revising alone. Furthermore, the combination of pauses and partners has merit and holds promise as a means for revision. Overall, findings suggested that revision is a new student-centered means to boost lecture note taking and achievement.


Note taking Note revision Lecture pauses Collaborative learning Achievement 


  1. Aharony, N. (2006). The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 851–866. doi: 10.1348/000709905X79158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439–444. doi: 10.1037/h0076613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken, A., & Hatt, G. (2012). Students taking notes and creating summaries together (or not). In A. Herrington, J. Schrape, & K. Singh (Eds.), Engaging students with learning technologies (pp. 147–165). Perth: Curtin University.Google Scholar
  4. Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, J. L., Lee, M., & Carr, J. P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 314–320. Retrieved from:
  6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassili, J. N., & Joordens, S. (2008) Media player tool use, satisfaction with online lectures and examination performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 22, 93–108. Retrieved from:
  8. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note-taking strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 786–818. doi: 10.1002/tea.20115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyle, J. R. (2007). The process of note taking: Implications for students with mid disabilities. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80, 227–232. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.80.5.227-232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Personal involvement: Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763–769. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, C. M. (1999). Human-computer interface design guidelines. Exeter: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  13. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, independence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bui, D. C., & Myerson, J. (2014). The role of working memory abilities in lecture note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309. doi: 10.1037/a0030367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castello, M., & Monereo, C. (2005). Students’ note-taking as a knowledge-construction tool. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 265–285. doi: 10.1007/s10674-005-8557-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crooks, S. M., White, D. R., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 369–391. doi: 10.2190/EC.37.4.c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dash, P. K., Hebert, A. E., & Runyan, J. D. (2004). A unified theory for systems and cellular memory consolidation. Brain Research Reviews, 45, 30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2004.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. C. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38, 66–80.Google Scholar
  24. Delgado-Tellez, M., & Raposo, A. P. (2011, November). Motivating creativity and cooperation in classroom. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference of education, research and innovation, Madrid, Spain (pp. 1699–1703). Retrieved from
  25. Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, S. G. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14. doi: 10.1037/h0032243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, S. G. (1973). Listening and note taking: II. Immediate and delayed recall as functions of variations in thematic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-review intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287. doi: 10.1037/h0032243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186. doi: 10.3102/00346543069002145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. A. Ruger, C. E. Bussenius, & E. R. Hilgard, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885).Google Scholar
  29. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Notetaking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2009). Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Frisbie, D. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 25–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00422.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grabe, M. (2005). Voluntary use of online lecture notes: Correlates of note use and note use as an alternative to class attendance. Computers & Education, 44, 409–421. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Howe, M. J. A. (1970). Using students’ notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 61–63. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1970.10884094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 601–614. doi: 10.1037/a0019137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67–73. doi: 10.1080/00405849909543834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kam, M., Wang, J., Iles, A., Tse, E., Chiu, J., Glaser, D. et al. (2005). Livenotes: A system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 531–540). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055046.
  39. Karat, C. M., Halverson, C., Horn, D., & Karat, J. (1999). Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 568–575). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/302979.303160.
  40. Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 157–163. doi: 10.1177/0963721412443552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. doi: 10.1080/09658210802647009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katayama, A. D., & Crooks, S. M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 293–312. doi: 10.1080/00220970309602067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2001_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, and attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73–77.Google Scholar
  45. Kiewra, K. A. (1989a). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172. doi: 10.1007/BF01326640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kiewra, K. A. (1989b). Cognitive aspects of autonomous note taking: Control processes, learning strategies, and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 23, 39–56. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2301_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 172–187. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1995.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S. I., & Risch, N. (1991). Effects of repetition on recall and note-taking: Strategies for learning from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 120–123. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477. doi: 10.1080/01443410500342070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Eveleigh, E. (2009). A meta-analytic review of guided notes. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 421–444. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lambiotte, J. G., Skaggs, L. P., & Dansereau, D. F. (1993). Learning from lecture: Effects of knowledge maps and cooperative review strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 483–497. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350070604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Larson, R., & Farber, E. (2011). Elementary statistics: Picturing the world (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Maydosz, A., & Raver, S. A. (2010). Note taking and university students with learning difficulties: What supports are needed? Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 177–186. doi: 10.1037/a0020297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience. Computers & Education, 53, 330–342. doi: 10.1016/j/compedu.2009.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science,. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581.Google Scholar
  58. O’Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. F. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 116–125. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1993.9943856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Omoigui, N., He L., Gupta, A., Grudin, J., & Sanocki, E. (1999). Time-compression: Systems concerns, usage, and benefits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 136–143). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/302979.303017.
  60. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2002). A framework for reporting and interpreting internal consistency reliability estimates. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 89–103. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.Google Scholar
  61. Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K. E., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). College adults are not good at self-regulation: A study on the relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 335–346. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–126. doi: 10.1002/acp.2881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raver, S. A., & Maydosz, A. S. (2010). Impact of the provision and timing of instructor-provided notes on university students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 189–200. doi: 10.1177/1469787410379682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reimer, Y. J., Brimhall, E., Cao, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Empirical user studies inform the design of an e-notetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education. Computers & Education, 52, 893–913. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roediger, H. L. (2000). Why retrieval is the key process in understanding human memory. In E. Tulving (Ed.), Memory, consciousness, and the brain: The Tallinn conference (pp. 52–75). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Multiple contrasts and ordered Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1028–1034. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scerbo, M. W., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Grasha, A. F. (1992). The role of time and cuing in a college lecture. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 312–328. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(92)90070-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schoen, I. (2012). Effects of method and context of note-taking on memory: Handwriting versus typing in lecture and textbook-reading contexts. Pitzer Senior Theses. Paper 20. Retrieved from
  70. Stefanou, C., Hoffman, L., & Vielee, N. (2008). Note-taking in the college classroom as evidence of generative learning. Learning Environment Resources, 11, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10984-007-9033-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stringfellow, J. L., & Miller, S. P. (2005). Enhancing student performance in secondary classrooms while providing access to the general education curriculum using lecture formats. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
  72. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  73. Thomson, D. M., & Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255–262. doi: 10.1037/h0029997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thorndike, E. L. (1912). The curve of work. Psychological Review, 19, 165–194. doi: 10.1037/h0073541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students’ note taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305–320. doi: 10.1080/0363452032000305922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934).Google Scholar
  78. Watts, M., & Becker, W. E. (2008). A little more than chalk and talk: Results from a third national survey of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 39, 273–286. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.3.273-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wickelgren, W. A. (1972). Trace resistance and the decay of long-term memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9, 418–455. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(72)90015-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. Journal of General Education, 51, 173–199. doi: 10.1353/jge.2003.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams, R. L., & Worth, S. L. (2002). Thinking skills and work habits: Contributors to course performance. Journal of General Education, 51, 200–227. doi: 10.1353/jge.2003.0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wong, L. (2014). Essential study skills (8th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  83. Yetter, G., Gutkin, T., Saunders, A., Galloway, A., Sobansky, R., & Song, S. (2006). Individual practice for complex problem solving: A cautionary tale. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 137–159. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.74.2.137-160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linlin Luo
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Kiewra
    • 1
  • Lydia Samuelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations