Note Taking Methods

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET April 2006 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 5 Issue 2 Article 8
THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHING NOTE-TAKING AND INFORMATION MAPPING ON

LEARNING AND RECALLING IN SCIENCE
Mehmet ARSLAN
Faculty of Education, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey
Tel: +90-352-437 4901-37003, Fax: +90-352-437 8834
arslan@erciyes.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
This work describes an experimental research on note taking and concept mapping in a science class of 5 graders
in Kayseri (Central Anatolia, Turkey) in the academic year 2002 - 2003. Gained results are in favor of
convictions that view note taking as an effective learning strategy. At least it was more effective than concept
mapping in the experiments of the present study. A possible reason for this is that students benefited from their
notes by recapitulating lesson contents whereas concept maps were not used in such a way. This assumption is
supported by other experimental evidence that ascribe the advantages of note taking to its function as external
memory store that helps students to better process lesson contents.
Key words: Note taking, concept mapping, experimental, science, and primary education
1. INTRODUCTION
Note taking is a general learning strategy that has been well studied in a variety of different learning
environments (Akinsanya and Williams, 2004). Patterson et al. (1992) classify note taking as an organizing and
focusing strategy. Notes help to remember the important points of a lesson and can be used for revision and
reference purposes. There are three benefits of note taking. First, it increases attention to the lesson. While
recording a set of notes it is impossible for a student to get bored or inattentive. Second, it aids memory for the
lesson. It is easier to remember noted lesson points than non-noted points. Third, it produces a set of notes
available for review. Since memory is fallible, it is necessary to review the subject.
The results obtained from studies on note taking strategies are controversial. According to many studies, students
who take notes perform better than those who do not (Kiewra, 1985). Some researchers found that note taking is
effective on recalling (Fisher and Harris, 1973; Kiewra et al., 1989; Rish and Kiewra 1990) and assists students
learning (Annis and Davis, 1975; DiVesta and Gray, 1972; Barnett et al., 1981; Kardash and Kroeker, 1989).
Note taking assists students learning during both encoding and storage stages. The encoding effect is the result
of the process of attending to and recording important details of a lesson. It is argued that the storage effect is the
result of the reviewing of notes. The combined effect of encoding and storage processing is said to be more
beneficial than encoding on its own (Hartley, 1983; Kiewra et al., 1991, 1995; Peper and Mayer, 1978, 1986).
On the other hand, a number of other studies have found no advantage of taking notes. These studies indicate
that note taking has no significant effect on the general performance of students (Lipsky, 1984). Peper and
Mayer (1978) show that while note taking has no effect on general performance, it does have an effect for low
capacity students. Thus, the effect of note taking may depend on the level of students. Kiewra (1985) suggested
that these different results are due to the type of note taking practice. Sometimes students record exactly
everything what a teacher says with very little engagement. At other times, students employ conceptual note
taking (Rickards and McCormick, 1988), summarizing (King, 1992) or self-questioning (Spires, 1993). All
these latter types of note taking involve significant levels of engagement and are thus more effective (Trafton
and Tricket, 2001).
Concept maps are schematic diagrams that use a graphical/verbal system to illustrate the relation of one concept
to another (Nowak and Gwin, 1984). Concept maps should not simply list information from text randomly, or
even in a linear fashion. Rather, they should depict the structure of knowledge in propositional statements that
illustrate the relationships among the concepts in a map. A concept map consists of three basic elements:
1. Concept names written inside ovals, rectangles, or other shapes represent concepts.
2. Linking lines (as in flow charts) or arrows (as in arrow diagrams) show the connections between two
concepts.
3. Linking phrases, which label linking lines, describe the relations between concepts.
Concept mapping is a learning strategy that can be expert, teacher and learner generated. Experts apply it to
textbook, instructional or multimedia design, for example (Johnsen et al., 2000). Teachers can take advantage of
concept maps to prepare e.g. lesson plans, teaching materials and learning aids. Learners can use it to represent
56
and organize information to be able to better understand and remember the subject under consideration (Chularut
and DeBacker, 2004). For them, concept maps are aids to summarize subjects as well as support discussion and
reflection. The more a learner binds concepts and examples together in a concept map, the deeper they can
understand a subject (Baroody and Bartels, 2001).
The goal of the present study is to assess how much the two learning strategies concept mapping and note taking
are suitable and efficient in the given primary school context as described below.
2. METHOD
2.1 Participants
The research was carried out with 135 students in three classes at grade 5 of Arif Eminoglu Primary School
located in the District of Kayseri in Central Anatolia, Turkey. It was applied during the first half of the academic
year 2002-2003 over a study period of 4 weeks. One control group with 41 students and two study groups with
48 and 46 students were randomly selected.
2.2 Materials
Chapter. The chapter Getting to Know Our Body in the course book Science Curriculum for Elementary
Students (MEB, 1992) was studied.
Chapter Period. 24 lesson hours were given over a study period of 4 weeks (6 hours per week) corresponding to
4 units. For each unit, aims and objectives were established so that the data gathering for the assessment could be
prepared.
Prior Knowledge. The Cognitive Entrance Behavior Test (CEBT) consisting of 28 multiple-choice questions and
the Level Determination Test (LDT) with 52 multiple-choice questions were prepared. The CEBT was applied
after selecting the control and study groups at the beginning of the 5 weeks training period (Figure 1), which
proved that all groups had really been at the same learning level. The LDT was implemented as a pre-test at the
beginning of the experiment (Figure 1). Of this test, 19 questions pre-tested knowledge, 18 questions
comprehension, and 15 questions application. The samples of each type are shown in Table 4. Both tests have
been deemed adequate with regard to scope and validity by a group of experts on the program itself in science
and science education. The reliability coefficients of the instruments have been found as satisfying by using KR20 formulae; 0.83 and 0.89 respectively.
Achievement Test. The same LDT was applied twice again as a post-test at the end of the study period of 4
weeks, and as a delayed post-test to measure recognition levels after 6 weeks (Figure 1). Both tests were checked
and approved by a group of experts in science education.
Experimental Design. In this research the Control Group Pretest-Final Test type experimental design was
applied.
Data Analysis. For this, a variance analysis was used. As the three groups were seen to be equal regarding their
pre-learning status, the differences between their averaged post-test scores were examined to measure their
recognition level. The same differences of the delayed post-test were analyzed to measure their recognition
level again. Besides, the Scheffe Test (Pfaffenberger and Patterson, 1981) was applied to estimate group
differences. .
2.3 Procedure
The following procedure was applied in this research. The 41 students of the control group continued their
science course without any training on the learning strategies considered here. The 1st study group was educated
in concept mapping (CM group), the 2nd study group in note taking (NT group) over a training period of 5 weeks
as shown in Figure 1.
The 48 students of the CM started to work on concept maps prepared by the author in the beginning of the
training period. Then they expanded the given concept maps to refine their contents. Afterwards, students were
asked to create their own concepts maps both in a lesson and as homework, and then discuss the results with
their classmates in class. Then they compared their own maps with the one prepared by the author. In time,
students of the CM group became more skilled in making their own concept maps.
The 46 students of the TM group learnt to create note taking matrices, one of the note taking strategies. They
were trained in a similar way as the students of the CM group. In the beginning they worked on note taking
57
matrices made by the author. After spending some time on their refinement, students began to prepare their own
matrices both in a lesson and as homework that were then discussed in class. Then they evaluated their own
matrices using the one created by the author. In this way, students of the TM group learnt how to produce
matrices for note taking.
Both study groups were tested at the end of the training period after completing small projects on concept
mapping and note taking, respectively.
3. RESULTS
As shown in Figures 2 illustrating the data of Table 1, no significant differences exist for the pre-test scores
between control and study groups gained through the LDT, which was applied at the beginning of the study
period (Figure 1). Thus, the CEBT results were confirmed that all groups were equally selected with regard to
their pre-study level.
Figure 2a. Pre-test scores of control and study groups
Figure 2b. Post-test scores of control and study groups
Figure 2c. Delayed post-test scores of control and study groups
Table 1. Test scores of control and study groups
(M = Mean value, S = Standard deviation, N = Number of students)
Comparing the control and CM pre- and post-test scores (Figure 2a and 2b), one observes that there is hardly any
difference between their scores. The same is true for the post- and delayed post-test scores (Figure 2b and 2c),
meaning that concept mapping had no visible effect on the CM group in this experiment.
Doing the same for the NT group, a significant difference is recognizable for the post-test knowledge score
(Figure 2b), and the delayed post-test knowledge and application score (Figure 2c). These results are confirmed
by the F-values of the variance analysis (Table 2) and the difference values of the Scheffe tests (Table 3). Thus,
one can conclude that note taking matrices had a positive impact on the NT group in this experiment.
Table 2. F-values of variance analysis for different LDT categories
(Largest F-values in bold without considering the Total)
Table 3. Scheffe tests for control and study groups
(D = Difference, S = Standard deviation, p = probability factor)
(Largest D-values in bold without considering the Total)
4. DISCUSSION
Considering the gained results the main question is why the CM study group did not do significantly better than
the control group in their post- and delayed post-tests. The following reasons or a combination of them may
provide an answer:
1. Teaching of concept mapping was not sufficient in terms of quality and quantity.
2. Students of the CM group didn't learn concept mapping in depth because it's much harder to understand and
apply than note taking, especially for 5 graders (comp. Johnsen et al., 2000).
3. The acquired CM knowledge was not giving any advantage for the post-tests because they only consisted
multiple-choice questions students couldnt apply their CM knowledge to.
In the opinion of the author the first two reasons played more important roles, and discussions with students of
the CM group after the experiment confirmed this. Of course, other factors are also involved, for example, the
fact that the time period set aside for carrying out the experiment with training and study periods may be
insufficient to produce the expected effects.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this work was to assess how much the two learning strategies concept mapping and note taking are
suitable and efficient in the context of a Turkish primary school. Obtained results from the experiment indicate
that note taking can help students to improve their levels of knowledge and maybe application. But this is not the
case for concept mapping, where no significant differences between control and study groups were observed.
This is quite unsatisfactory and needs further reseach with various grade and subject levels over a longer study
period in order to gain more insight and identify the real reasons.
58
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Id like to thank all colleagues and reviewers who somehow contributed to this manuscript by their insights,
proposals and corrections.
REFERENCES
Akinsanya, C., and Williams, M. (2004), Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Nurse Education Today,
24(1):41-46.
nnis, L and Davis, J. K. (1975). The effect of encoding and an external memory device on note taking. Journal
of Experimental Education, 44:44-46.
Annis, L and Davis, J. K. (1975). The effect of encoding and an external memory device on note taking. Journal
of Experimental Education, 44:44-46.
Barnett, E.J., Di Vesta, J.F. and Rogozinski, T.J. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73:181-192.
Baroody, A. J. and Bartels, B. H. (2001). Assessing understanding in mathematics with concept mapping.
Mathematics in School, 30(3):1-3.
Chularut, P. and DeBacker, T.K. (2004) The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and
self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
29(3):248-263.
DiVesta, F.J. and Gray, G.S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63:8-14.
Fisher, J.L. and Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65(3):321-325.
Hartley, J. (1983). Note-taking research: resetting the scoreboard. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society,
36:13-14.
Johnsen, J.A., Biegel, D.E. and Shafran, R. (2000). Concept mapping in mental health: uses and adaptations.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(1): 67-75.
Kardash, C.A.M. and Kroeker, T. K. (1989). Effects of time of review and test expectancy on learning from text.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14:325-335.
Kiewra, K.A. (1985). Investigating note taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational
Psychologist, 20:23-32.
Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, F.N., Christensen, M., Kim, S.I. and Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of
the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science, 19:217-232.
Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, F.N., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M. and Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking
Functions and Techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83:240-245.
Kiewra, K.A., Benton, S. L., Kina, S.I., Rich, N. and Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note taking format and
study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20:172187.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing and note-taking-review as strategies for learning
from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29:303-323.
Lipsky, S.A. (1984). Effect of Cognitive Style on the Success of Two Textbook Note Taking Techniques.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(6), 1703A.
MEB. (1992). Ilkogretim kurumlari fen bilgisi dersi ogretim programlari. Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi. In
English: Science Curriculum for Elementary Students. National Ministry of Education Publisher.
Novak, J., and Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn, Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, M,E., Dansereau, D.F.and Newbern, D.N. (1992). Effect of communication aids on strategies on
cooperative teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4): 453-461.
Peper, R. J. and Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology,
70(4): 514-522.
Peper, R. J. and Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note taking during science lectures. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78:34-38.
Pfaffenberger, R.C. and Patterson, J. H. (1981). Statistical Methods. Ontario: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Richards, J.P., and McCormick, C.B. (1988). Effect of interspersed conceptual requisition on note taking in
listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80:592-594.
Risch, N. L. and Kiewra, K. A. (1990). Content and form variations in note taking: effects among junior high
students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6):335-357.
Spires, H.A. (1993). Learning from a lecture: Effects of comprehension monitoring. Reading Research &
Instruction, 32(2):19-30.
Trafton, J.G. and Trickett, S.B. (2001). Note taking for self- explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer
Interaction,16:1-38.
59
Figure 1. Time plan with periods/tests located above/below the time axis
Figure 2a. Pre-test scores of control and study groups
Figure 2b. Post-test scores of control and study groups
60
Figure 2c. Delayed post-test scores of control and study groups

Table 1. Test scores of control and study groups
(M = Mean value, S = Standard deviation, N = Number of students)
Group
Control
CM
NT
N
Total
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Total
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Total
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
41
48
46
Pre-test
M
15.019
7.415
4.634
3.000
16.208
7.542
5.375
3.333
16.261
7.478
4.870
3.913
S
3.791
1.975
2.022
1.844
5.061
1.967
1.996
2.309
5.331
2.383
2.083
4.896
Post-test
M
S
29.780
5.332
12.537
2.501
9.415
3.082
7.829
1.787
31.98
7.50
12.896
3.520
10.938
2.740
8.146
2.484
37.171
3.349
17.022
1.374
12.000
1.606
8.152
1.897
Delayed post-test
M
S
19.171
5.572
7.927
2.553
6.537
2.829
4.707
1.965
22.333
6.155
9.125
2.900
7.792
2.767
5.417
2.172
28.109
5.030
11.826
2.831
8.087
2.336
8.196
1.655
Table 2. F-values of variance analysis for different LDT categories

(Largest F-values in bold without considering the Total)
Total
Pre-test
0.867
Post-test
19.66***
Delayed post-test
28.67***
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Knowledge
0.040
40.37***
22.90***
Comprehension
1.566
11.326**
4.133*
Application
2.300
0.332
40.13***
61
Table 3. Scheffe tests for control and study groups

(D = Difference, S = Standard deviation, p = probability factor)
(Largest D-values in bold without considering the Total)
Differences of post-test results
Comparison
D
Control / CM
2.199
Control / NT
7.394***
CM / NT
5.195***
Knowledge
Comparison
D
Control / CM
.3592
Control / NT
4.486***
CM / NT
4.126***
Comprehension
Comparison
D
Control / CM
1.523
Control / NT
2.586***
CM / NT
1.063
Application
Comparison
D
Control / CM
--Control / NT
--CM / NT
--Differences of delayed post-test results
Total
Comparison
D
Control / CM
3.163
Control / NT
8.938***
CM / NT
5.776***
Knowledge
Comparison
D
Control / CM
1.198
Control / NT
3.899***
CM / NT
2.701***
Comprehension
Comparison
D
Control / CM
1.255
Control / NT
1.550*
CM / NT
.295
Application
Comparison
D
Control / CM
.709
Control / NT
3.488**
CM / NT
2.779*
*p < .05 **p <.01 ***p <.001
Total
S
1.2113
1.2234
1.1753
S
.5607
.5663
.5440
S
.5392
.5446
.5232
S
-------
p
>.05
< .001**
< .001**
p
>.05
< .001**
< .001**
p
>.01
< .001**
>.05
p
-------
S
1.194
1.206
1.158
S
.5902
.5961
.5762
S
.5632
.5688
.5464
S
.4136
.4178
.4013
p
>.01
< .001**
< .001**
p
>.05
< .001**
< .001**
p
>.05
< .05*
>.05
p
>0.05
>0.01**
<0.01**
Table 4. Level Determination Test Samples for each type.

LEVELS
KNOWLEDGE
NO
QUESTION
Which of the following is not the task of a skeleton?
a.) Protects the inner organs
b.) Shapes the body
c.) Helps the inner organs to work
d.) Helps the body movements
Ali says I can have the blood transfer from all people but I have no Rh in my
blood. What is the blood type of Ali?
COMPREHENSION
28
a.
b.
c.
0 Rh (+)
AB Rh (+)
0 Rh (-)
62
d.
AB Rh (-)
Ali
Veli
mer
Kaya
APPLICATION
BLOOD TYPE
0
AB
A
B
Rh
+
+
-
47
According to the table above, which following is incorrect?
a.
b.
c.
d.
mer can have the blood tranfer from Ali

Veli can have the blood transfer from Kaya
Kaya can have the blood transfer from Veli
Ali can never have blood transfer from the others
63
A Research Based Approach to Encouraging Eective

Note-taking: Best Practices and Supporting Technologies
In recent years, the increased deployment of computer labs, laptop initiatives,

and pen-based computers in both K-12 and higher education classroom
settings has made it possible to provide more interactive and student-centered
lectures and classroom presentations. Ideally, the use of these technologies
should also support students as they engage in proven study techniques such
as note-taking and note-review. This article explores previous research related
to the benefits of note-taking and the methods that are used to facilitate
effective note-taking, and then discusses DyKnow Vision, a tool that can be
used to enhance the note-taking experience as well as to foster an interactive
classroom environment. In a recent survey of 81 students who had used
DyKnow Vision in a total of 431 courses, 64 students (79%) indicated that there
was significant value in the DyKnow Vision approach to note-taking while an
additional 15 students (19%) rated the approach as having moderate value. In
total, 79 of the 81 students found value in using DyKnow Vision for note-taking.
Table of Contents
Previous Research into Note-taking
Why Take Notes?
Encoding: Learning While Taking Notes
External Storage: Learning from Reading Notes
Additional Issues to Keep in Mind regarding Note-Taking
Facilitating Good Note-taking
The Role of DyKnow Vision in Facilitating Note-taking
Using DyKnow to Support Effective Note-Taking
Using DyKnow to support Useful Note Review
Conclusion
10
References
10
2 Previous Research into Note-taking

2.1 Why Take Notes?
According to an enormous body of research developed over the last quartercentury, useful note-taking provides two main benefits. First, note-taking serves
as an encoding mechanism, allowing the learner to store information in a useful
way by interpreting material and associating it with prior experiences. Second,
note-taking provides a mechanism for external storage, allowing students to use
their notes as a resource for later review. The following sections discuss research
on each of these functions.
2.1.1 Encoding: Learning While Taking Notes
According to the encoding hypothesis, knowledge is stored in mental structures
unique to every individual. When new information is learned, it is added to an
existing mental model. If the new information is novel enough, a new mental
model is created. The structure of mental models is influenced by the way
material is initially presented, as well as by the learners own unique thought
process and experiences with similar information in the past. Researchers believe
that note-taking affects the way that models are created. Note-taking appears to
help students to pay attention, develop individual ideas, and organize material
better in their own minds (Einstein et al., 1985).
Effective note-taking appears to have a particularly positive impact on a students

ability to answer questions that require higher-level thinking. In a study of notetaking in science lectures, Peper and Mayer (1986) found that students who take
notes perform better at critical thinking exercises and exercises that require
transfer of knowledge to other areas, as compared to students who listen without
taking notes. Another study showed that students who review their own notes
after a class session also perform better then those who review notes created
by others (Kenneth A. Kiewra et al., 1991). This is likely explained by the theory
that students will recall conceptual information best when retrieval cues match
those they formed when they first learned material. Providing possible support
for this theory, an investigation of student notes indicated that students do not
merely record factual information verbatim. Instead, diagrams, arrows, and other
mechanisms are often used by students to record notes in a way that matches
their own encoding mechanisms (Peper & Mayer, 1986).
The impact of active note-taking on factual recall is less uniform. In fact, some
evidence shows that studying from notes provided by the instructor may be as
good or better than using student-taken notes, especially for reviewing factual
material (Kenneth A. Kiewra, 1985b). This is probably because student notes are
often incomplete or inaccurate. On the other hand, when accurate note taking is
achieved, it has proven to be an important factor in correctly absorbing factual
information in many studies. In one of the studies most supportive of note-taking
for factual recall, for example, students listened to a lecture while taking notes
at their own discretion. After the lecture, the students took a recall test without
being given any opportunity to review their notes. Even though no note-review
was permitted, students had a 40% chance of recalling material which could
be found in their notes, as compared to a 7% chance of recalling material that
they did not record (Einstein et al., 1985). This appears to indicate that students
retain more of the factual information they include in their notes as compared to
information they do not record (Einstein et al., 1985).
The use of effective practices that help students create complete and useful
notes will be discussed in section 3.2, Facilitating Good Note-taking. Section
4 of this paper illustrates how software systems can be used to support these
practices.
2.1.2 External Storage: Learning from Reading Notes
In addition to the benefit of allowing students to be actively involved with
material during class, notes are often used as a way to record information for
later review. In fact, the review process itself may be an opportunity for further
encoding of information (Kenneth A. Kiewra, 1985a). Several researchers have
demonstrated the effectiveness of studying from previously taken notes. In one
study, for example, students were given a recall test one week after taking notes
on a lecture. Students who were allowed to review their notes prior to the test
recalled four times as much information as those who were not allowed to review
their notes (Einstein et al., 1985).
Similar results have been demonstrated in other settings. For example, in a study
of undergraduate college students taking a performance test (consisting of cued
recall, factual recognition, and transfer related questions) one week after being
presented material, students who received notes to study performed dramatically
better then those who received no notes. For the test questions that required
transfer of knowledge to a new situation, students who studied outline notes that
they took themselves earned almost twice as many points as those who did not
review any notes. On a cued recall test which measured the retention of factual
knowledge, students who were allowed to briefly study outline notes were able to
record 21.09 important points (out of 121 possible topics) when asked to note all
items recalled, while students who had no notes to study only recorded 2.82 items
(Kenneth A. Kiewra et al., 1988).
2.1.3 Additional Issues to Keep in Mind Regarding Note-Taking
Students, particularly those at early ages, need guidance in order to take useful
notes. For example, a study of fifth graders creating notebooks as part of a handson science curriculum determined that the type of notebook entries made by
children is highly dependant on instructions given by teachers. Students recorded
information (such as procedures and results) when specifically prompted by
teachers, but did not record thoughtful reflection, interesting class discussions,
or their own questions (Baxter et al., 2001). The authors conclude that notebooks
can be used to facilitate learning, but only if the teacher explains what is expected
from the students. Encouraging students to take notes of examples, discussions,
and their own critical thinking processes and questions can help them to take
more comprehensive and useful notes.
Even at the college level, not all students appear to have acquired good notetaking skills. In one study, successful students (who maintained a high GPA in
college courses) appeared to be better able to distinguish highly important
material from less important material, and overall noted more highly important
items in their notes then did less successful students (Einstein et al., 1985). This
indicates that not all students are equally adept at taking good notes. Suggestions
for helping students take better notes are provided in the following section of this
document.
2.2 Facilitating Good Note-taking
Research suggests many ways to encourage good note-taking by students.
Although all of these techniques require fore-thought on the part of teachers, the
impact on student learning may make these techniques well worth the effort.
One method for helping students create a complete and useful set of notes is
the use of guided notes. Guided notes are often presented as handouts that
correspond to the instructors teaching notes or slides. These guided notes are
constructed with key pieces of content left out. Students may use the guided
notes as a framework, filling in the missing pieces as class progresses. A large
body of evidence shows that the use of some form of guided notes helps students
to encode better, and also results in notes that are more useful for student review.
For example, in a study of college-level psychology students, the use of guided
notes was shown to significantly improve student note-taking. When visual aids
(such as slides) and guided notes are both used, students record more critical
points and more examples than in more traditional lecture formats. In one study,
60% of relevant examples are accurately noted by students using guided notes,
while only 26% are recorded by students attending a lecture with slides, and a
mere 13% of these examples are recorded by students who attend the lecture
only (Austin et al., 2004). Similar results were noted in earlier studies across
diverse groups of students, including high school students, incarcerated juveniles
(aged 13-19), college-level students with learning disabilities, and mainstream
high school and college students (Austin et al., 2004).
There are several ways to provide guided notes. One technique involves the use
of skeletal notes, which consist of an incomplete outline of the instructors notes.
Skeletal notes can be a good way to combine the full advantages of detailed, wellstructured instructor notes with the encoding benefits that stem from taking and
studying self-created notes (Kenneth A. Kiewra, 1985b). Research has shown that
well-designed skeletal notes are more effective than free-form notes or complete
instructor notes handed out before the class session (Hartley, 1976).
Skeletal notes usually take the form of the instructors notes with details left out.
However, there are other forms of guided notes that have proven even more
successful in some settings. Most of these strategies use visual and/or spatial
representations which help the student to understand and mentally organize
concepts. For instance, linear outlines help organize the information by listing
topics and related sub-topics in a way that indicates their relationship but leaves
space for students to fill in details. Notes in the form of a matrix allow the learner
to identify and understand relationships between and within categories of
information(Kenneth A. Kiewra et al., 1988). Hierarchical diagrams allow students
to understand the relationship between concepts by displaying them as a tree
(Kenneth A. Kiewra & DuBois, 1992). Sequential representations, which use layout,
arrows, and other graphical techniques, allow cause and effect or a sequence
of events to be illustrated clearly (Kenneth A. Kiewra & DuBois, 1992). Graphical
organizers use white-space and the placement of text to indicate relationships
between concepts. Knowledge maps or concepts maps work similarly, using
notes and lines to indicate the relationship between concepts. These visual
representations can be used effectively when partially completed, allowing
students to take some of their own notes while modeling an alternative strategy
for note-taking (Katayama & Robinson, 2000).
Finally, a few minutes spent carefully introducing the material before presenting
it, as well as providing time for students to work with material after it has been
presented, can have great benefits. Advanced organizers (written summaries
of what will be discussed) presented before a lesson can help learners to retain
more factual information as well as come to a higher-level understanding of the
relationship between concepts learned. Advanced organizers may be a simple list
of topics or an outline of topics and sub-topics, or a matrix that presents a group
of concepts with a complex relationship (Kenneth A. Kiewra & Mayer, 1997).
Immediate review or testing of material following presentation appears to also
strengthen associations made by the learner and aid in retention (Di Vesta & Gray,
1972). Practice or hands-on exercises may be engaging to students, as well as
providing an additional mechanism to assist in encoding new material. These can
be built into guided notes, by providing plenty of room for students to work out
their own solutions and annotate them during discussion.
3 The Role of DyKnow Vision in Facilitating Note-taking
With the increasing availability of computers in K-12 and college classrooms in
the United States, research related to computer-aided note-taking has become
increasingly popular. In this section we focus on a software system known as
DyKnow Vision, which is being used successfully in K-12 classrooms as well as
higher-education institutions. DyKnow Vision can be used in traditional computer
labs, or in any classroom with portable laptops, Tablet PCs, or other pen-based
note-taking devices. Data indicates that students believe the system improves
their ability to take notes and increases their confidence that they leave class
with a well-organized and accurate set of notes for studying. Students frequently
report that they believe they learn more in courses facilitated with DyKnow
software.
Concerned that students spent most of their time and energy copying down
notes rather than interacting with the material during a traditional lecture,
Dr. Dave Berque, a Computer Science Professor at DePauw University, designed a
prototype system to help students interact more directly with the teacher and the
material during class. One objective of the system was to facilitate effective note
taking, by allowing students to spend less time copying down complex diagrams
and mechanically transcribing what the teacher was saying, while also helping
students to avoid note-taking errors. Rather than eliminating student notetaking, the goal was to transform the nature of student note-taking from rote
copying to higher level analysis. Students could annotate on top of or alongside
the teachers notes, allowing for the benefits of active note-taking (Berque, 2005).
An enhanced and extended version of this software is now called DyKnow Vision.
DyKnow Vision allows teachers to use prepared class materials, or to design
class material on the fly using a laptop computer, Tablet PC or other personal
computing device. Regardless of whether materials are prepared in advance
or extemporaneously during class, DyKnow Vision allows the students and

teacher to share them easily and naturally. For example, the teacher can
extemporaneously draw sketches directly on the surface of a pen-based
computer or electronic whiteboard. Alternatively, the teacher can use a keyboard
to type material, and can import material (including graphics, PowerPoint slides,
and live Web content) that was prepared ahead of time. All information sketched,
typed, or imported by the teacher immediately appears on each students display,
where students can then use a keyboard, mouse, or stylus to annotate directly on
top of the material, or within a private notes pane. While the software has many
additional features, especially those that promote classroom interaction, a full
description is beyond the scope of this paper (the interested reader is referred to
www.dyknow.com). In the remainder of this paper we focus on the relationship of
DyKnow to note-taking.
3.1 Using DyKnow to Support Effective Note-Taking
Because DyKnow software allows teachers to transmit notes for students to
complete or annotate, it can provide the benefits that stem from allowing
students to augment partial notes structured by the teacher, without many of
the limitations associated with using paper-based guided notes. For example,
while paper-based guided notes must be prepared in advance, guided notes
delivered with DyKnow Vision can also include material that is developed
extemporaneously during class (perhaps in response to a student question
or comment). In addition, paper-based guided notes are most conveniently
delivered to students in packets that cover one or more class periods. On the
other hand, guided notes delivered with DyKnow Vision can be electronically
released to students on a page by page basis. This helps students stay on task,
and prevents them from looking ahead in the notes to find answers to questions
that the teacher wants the students to grapple with during class.
Students see the value in the DyKnow Vision approach. In a recent survey of
students who have used DyKnow Vision, 95% of students indicated that the use of
DyKnow Vision software in the classroom provides a moderate or significant value
in enhancing their understanding of material during class, and 98% indicated that
they gained moderate or significant value by adding their own notes to teacher
content (Berque, 2005).
DyKnow software is uniquely suited to the use of skeletal or partially completed
notes for augmentation by students. Whether the teacher pre-prepares notes
or creates them extemporaneously, it is easy for the teacher to accommodate
student annotations. By adjusting the amount of material sent to students own
electronic notebooks, the teacher can allow students to benefit from interacting
with the material during class time, without requiring them to frantically
transcribe each item. Students may annotate directly on the teachers notes, or
add additional notes to a private notes area attached to each page the teacher
provides. Through use of the private notes pane as well as multiple ink and
highlighter colors, students can easily distinguish personal notes from those the
teacher or other students created. In the survey of computer science students using
DyKnow Vision, 87% of students indicated that they sometimes or frequently use
the highlighter and pen tools to emphasize material written by the teacher, while
93% use pen or keyboard to make further annotations on material presented by the
teacher (Berque, 2005). According to a student in a another recent survey, Being
able to distinguish between what the teacher said and what I was thinking is a nice
thing that is hard to reproduce in a [traditional] notebook(Mitra-Kirtley, 2005).
Using DyKnow Vision, teachers can also provide complex diagrams or other visual
aids, without fear that students will make errors in transcription or be so busy
copying that they miss essential discussion of the illustrations. Survey results
demonstrate that students especially appreciate this feature. One hundred percent
of students indicated that use of DyKnow Vision has moderate or significant value
in providing an accurate set of notes, and 86% indicated that the use of the system
eases the note-taking process by not forcing them to copy everything down.
According to one student, I think that it is sometimes a burden to take detailed
notes- especially when involving complex graphs, tables, stats, etc. [DyKnow
Vision] would save time and provide more accurate and detailed notes- specifically
graphs (Berque, 2005). Students can also use the graphical features of DyKnow
Vision to highlight important facts, connect concepts using arrows or lines, or sketch
their own diagrams. Adding graphics or screen-captures of other applications is also
easy for both students and teachers, allowing for a variety of graphical content to be
included in the note books and further annotated.
DyKnow can also be very helpful to students who do not have fully developed notetaking skills, or who can not take their own notes well because of cognitive or other
disabilities. Students who do not normally take notes benefit from having at least a
framework to study from after class. According to one student, I focus much more
in DyKnow classes than I do in standard classes, and because I dont take notes often
outside of DyKnow classes it gives me something to look back on when I really need
it. (Berque, 2005)
Even more excitingly, DyKnow Vision can also be a useful tool in assisting students
in developing good note-taking skills of their own. For example, a recent workshop
for at-risk students used DyKnow Vision to teach students how to take better notes.
As the workshop began, an instructor presented a mock class and the students
took notes using DyKnow Vision. Next, the DyKnow Vision system was used to
electronically collect the student notes, so that they could be displayed at the front
of the room. A note-taking specialist then used the sample notes to stimulate a
discussion about good note-taking strategies (Berque, 2005). The ability to collect
student work, including student notes, allows instructors to provide constructive
feedback for all students, including young students or those who need remedial
support. This is also a good way to monitor student use of new note-taking
strategies being presented, such as the use of skeletal or matrix guided notes.
If desired, teachers may even collect work anonymously, which can help reduce
anxiety for some students.
3.2 Using DyKnow to support Useful Note Review
DyKnow notebooks from current and prior classes can be accessed at any time
from any Internet-enabled computer. According to students surveyed, DyKnow
notebooks have become an important resource for studying for exams, doing
homework, or even referencing relevant material during subsequent lectures or
subsequent courses. Notebooks are organized by class and date, and students can
save notebooks with meaningful filenames. Many students appreciate the way
DyKnow Vision allows them to keep all their course material together. According
to a student video on DyKnow use in high school level classes, Paper notes are
often messy and unwieldy. It is difficult to keep notes together and organized...
With DyKnow, students need not worry about loosing notes, as organization is
made easy, and accessing older notes for review is painless (Ritz, 2005).
As another advantage, DyKnow Vision notebooks provide a shared artifact that
combines the structure and details provided by the teacher with each students
own guided notes and insights. This makes DyKnow notebooks a good source of
material for review. The ability to continue interacting with the notebooks after
class makes them an even more powerful study tool. Students may modify inclass notes or copy notes from multiple notebooks into a new, comprehensive set
of notes while studying. The ability to augment notes outside of class time allows
students to think through the material one more time. In a recent survey, 58% of
students indicated that they sometimes or frequently add annotations to DyKnow
notebooks while studying outside of class. One student commented I like being
able to access my notes universally from on or off campus, I like being able to
access the DyKnow network from my own personal computer, and I enjoy being
able to go over my notes and modify them endlessly (Berque, 2005).
Paper notes are static documents that capture content rather than process. For
example, imagine that a chemistry teacher wanted to explain an electrolysis
experiment1. The teacher could draw several molecules on a black-board. Then,
using an eraser, the teacher could break the bonds between the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and redraw the bonds, showing the new hydrogen and oxygen
molecules created. The instructor might then wish to add another layer of
complexity, showing how the experiment can be improved by adding a salt
which ionizes in the water. In order to record this process in their paper-based
note books, students will have to draw multiple pictures or risk losing part of the
process that was shown.
1 Electrolysis involves using a current to split water molecules, resulting in the creation of hydrogen and oxygen ions which recombine at electrodes
to form hydrogen and oxygen molecules and can be collected in the form of gas bubbles
Notes taken with DyKnow Vision, on the other hand, capture process fully.
Specifically, any page from a DyKnow Vision notebook can be replayed stroke
by stroke. In the electrolysis example, students could replay the entire sequence
of events shown by the teacher on the board. The replay capability includes all
teacher content as well as student annotations, and therefore allows a student to
review how diagrams and other content were developed during class. This means
that teachers do not need to find videos or create complex animations prior to
class. DyKnow Vision allows the instructor to draw a representation of a sequence
of events on the fly, and feel assured that students can play the sequence back as
many times as they like after class. DyKnow Vision even allows students to control
the pace of replay, allowing them to explore details they may have missed during
class.
Results of student surveys have demonstrated the value students place in using
DyKnow Vision for note-review, including the value that stems from the ability to
replay notes stroke-by-stoke. Eighty-seven percent of students surveyed indicated
that they found moderate or significant enhancement in their understanding of
material when reviewing notes created in DyKnow Vision. One student testified I
immensely like the replay panel. It is really helpful when understanding some
concepts taught in class (Berque, 2005).
4 Conclusion
A review of the literature related student note-taking indicates that note-taking
plays a key role in student learning. Further, the literature demonstrates that there
are a number of ways to foster good note taking in students of all ages. Many of
these techniques are based on providing students with a framework that they
can use as a building block for their own notes. A tool such as DyKnow Vision
can make it easier for a teacher to provide such a framework. This can encourage
good note-taking practices, helping students to encode better during class time
and to create notes which are more useful for later review. Students using the
software for note-taking report additional benefits as well. These benefits include
easy access to class notes, and the ability to replay notes stroke by stroke while
reviewing after class.
References
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(4), 314-321.
Baxter, G. P., M., B. K., & R., G. (2001). Notebook writing in three fifth grade
classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 124-140.
10
Berque, D. (2005). Private communication of survey results.

Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63(4), 8-14.
Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences,
and memory for lecture information. American Psychological Association, 77(5),
522-532.
Hartley, J. (1976). Lecture handouts and student note-taking. Programmed
Learning and Educational Technology, 13(2), 58-64.
Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students partially involved in
note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2),
119-133.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing
alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23-33.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Providing the instructors notes: An effective addition to
student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 33-40.
Kiewra, K. A., & DuBois, N. F. (1992). Using spacial system for teaching operant
concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 19(1), 43-44.
About DyKnow
A leader in interactive
education, DyKnow
combines sound teaching
with intuitive technology
to create the most flexible
and effective solutions
for teaching and learning.
DyKnow is committed to
helping teachers maximize
class time and foster
collaboration while also
minimizing electronic
distraction. By promoting
effective studying and
gathering student
feedback teachers can
feel confident in students
academic success.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study
notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(4), 595-597.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley,
D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational
Psychology., 83(2), 240-245.
Kiewra, K. A., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Effects of advance organizers and repeated
presentations on students learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2),
147-160.
Mitra-Kirtley, S. (2005). Discussion of survey results. In M. E. Exter (Ed.).
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science
lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 34-38.
Ritz, R. (2005). Park tudor students using dyknow. Retrieved July 11, 2005 from:
http://www.dyknow.com/video/parktudor.wmv
11
For more information about DyKnow instructional software contact E-mail sales@dyknow.com or call 1.888.8.DYKNOW.
RESEARCH ON STUDENT NOTETAKING: IMPLICATIONS FOR FACULTY

AND GRADUATE STUDENT INSTRUCTORS
Deborah DeZure
Matthew Kaplan
Martha A. Deerman
Deborah DeZure is Coordinator of Faculty Programs at the Center for Research on Learning and
Teaching at the University of Michigan.
Matthew Kaplan is Associate Director at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the
University of Michigan.
Martha A. Deerman is a graduate student research assistant at CRLT.
Introduction
Notetaking has been a staple activity of academic life, particularly in lecture courses, for decades.
Despite its widespread use, notetaking has generally been taken for granted by both instructors and
students. However, in the past few years, changes in the landscape of higher education, such as the
proliferation of commercial notetaking services, have led instructors to ask questions about the efficacy
of notetaking in promoting learning and their own role in the process. These questions reflect instructor
concerns not only about notetaking services, but also the apparent decrease in student notetaking
abilities, the introduction of active modes of learning within lectures, and the ease with which instructors
can post their lecture notes online for campus-based courses or distance learning.
The purpose of this Occasional Paper is to review what research tells us about the impact of notetaking
and how the review of notes affects student learning. The paper also explores the role that instructors
can play, suggesting several specific strategies to support students.
What Research Tells Us About Notetaking and Review of Notes
Research on notetaking indicates that taking notes in class and reviewing those notes (either in class or
afterward) have a positive impact on student learning. Not surprisingly, the preponderance of studies
confirms that students recall more lecture material if they record it in their notes (Bligh, 2000). Students
who take notes score higher on both immediate and delayed tests of recall and synthesis than students
who do not take notes (Kiewra et al., 1991). Moreover, the more students record, the more they
remember and the better they perform on exams (Johnstone & Su, 1994). In summary, notetaking
facilitates both recall of factual material and the synthesis and application of new knowledge,
particularly when notes are reviewed prior to exams.
Many studies of notetaking find that review of notes (ones own, borrowed notes, or notes provided by
the instructor) significantly improves recall of lecture material. Kiewra et al. (1991) found that students
who take notes but do not review, earn lower exam scores than students who review notes prior to the
exam. Additionally, students not present at the lecture but given notes to review (either the instructors
notes or notes taken by other students) did almost as well as the students who reviewed their own notes
and significantly better than students who did not review.
Student Notetaking Abilities. Given the importance of notetaking and review to student beaming, it is
especially problematic that student notes are often incomplete and/or inadequate. Research indicates that
students fail to record 40% of the important
In summary, notetaking facilitates both recall of factual
material and the synthesis and application of new
knowledge, particularly when notes are reviewed prior to
exams.
points in a typical lecture (Hartley & Cameron, 1967; Howe, 1970), with first-year students recording,
on average, only 11% (Locke, 1977). Material written on the blackboard makes it into students notes at
a higher rate than material communicated verbally: students record most of the blackboard information
(Locke, 1977), but only about 10% of information delivered orally (Johnstone & Su, 1994). However,
students are selective about which lecture material to record, so that while overall recording may be low,
recording of main ideas may be quite high. Kiewra, Benton, and Lewis (1987) found that students record
90% of the main ideas, but not more than 11% of the supporting ideas.
Unfortunately, students notes are often inaccurate. Johnstone and Su (1994) report that inaccuracies in
student notes occur most frequently when students are copying diagrams, numerical figures, equations,
and items on transparencies-much of which is essential material. Further, corrections to notes that are
identified during class are seldom incorporated into notes once they are written. All of these challenges
are compounded for international students who may have difficulty with oral and/or written
communications in English.
How can faculty support student notetaking?
The poor quality of student notes may reflect not only a lack of skills necessary to take accurate and
complete notes but also the complexity of the task. Notetaking involves listening to new and often
unfamiliar information, transcribing that information quickly enough to keep pace with the lecture, and
deciding how to organize the material to reflect the relationships stated by the speaker. Several studies
indicate that students have difficulty organizing lecture material and identifying main points (Davies,
1976; Jackson & Bilton, 1990a, 1990b). Furthermore, students say they experience the most difficulty
with lecturers who speak too quickly or inaudibly, fail to present a clear outline at the beginning of the
lecture, or fail to signal important information (Johnstone & Su, 1994). Consequently, how faculty
lecture (organization, pace, affect, inflection) and what faculty do during lecture (give handouts, write
on the board, emphasize and/or repeat important material, summarize complex information), strongly
affect students ability to take notes. Faculty can improve their students notetaking ability by focusing
on three areas: lecture strategies, the use of handouts, and strategies for engaging students.
Lecture strategies to support notetaking
While the topic of effective lecturing is multifaceted, there are two factors that have a particularly strong
impact on students ability to take notes: 1) pacing, which includes both speed of delivery and the
amount and difficulty of information delivered; and 2) "cueing," which involves verbal and visual
signals of emphasis, structure, and relationships.

Pacing. The pace with which an instructor delivers a lecture has obvious implications for students
ability to keep up with the presentation and maintain attention. But how fast is too fast? Research
indicates that a moderate speed of delivery, around 135 words per minute, best supports student
notetaking (Peters, 1972). Faculty can evaluate their pace by asking a colleague to sit in on a lecture or
by distributing a short survey to students, including items such as "The pace of todays lecture was a)
Too slow, b) About right, c) Too fast." CRLT consultants can also observe or videotape instructors
classes to assist them in assessing the pace of their lectures.
Appropriate pacing is also affected by the complexity and familiarity of the material. When lectures
contain complex or unfamiliar material (or a lot of technical information and terminology), instructors
should move more slowly to allow students to record the relevant information. Instructors may also want
to balance the amount of new vs. familiar and simple vs. complex material when possible. Conversely,
when lecture material is easy to understand or reviews familiar ground, instructors can pick up the pace
and expect that students will easily keep up.
Pausing. The simplest way to engage students and improve their notes is to build in short pauses (two to
three minutes) a few times during the lecture when students can review and rework their notes. At the
end of the lecture, instructors can ask students to take three minutes to do a "free recall," that is, write
down everything they remember from lecture. Pausing uses relatively little class time and requires
minimal effort from instructors. Pausing also significantly improves student comprehension and
retention of material (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
Verbal and Visual Cues. Students ability to discern the structure of a lecture will also play a role in the
quality of their notes. Although the problem-centered, chronological, or cause-and-effect organization of
a lecture may be selfevident to faculty, students may not be able to identify this structure. To help
students, faculty can signal lecture structure and hierarchical relationships (e.g., key points versus detail,
context versus cause) by verbal and visual cueing. Verbal cues provide clarity and emphasis as well as
signal relationships (cause-and-effect, hierarchical, sequential, comparative, etc.) (Bligh, 2000). Verbal
cues include phrases such as "The four main arguments are...," "A major development was...,"
"Applying that concept...," "This story was an example of..."
Instructors can use visual cues to emphasize specific concepts and/or relationships among concepts.
Visual cues include writing information or simple diagrams on the board, presenting graphs or complex
charts on transparencies, or presenting a running outline of the lecture on slides. The most commonly
used visual cue is a topic outline on the board, slide, or overhead at the beginning of class to signal what
will be addressed in class that day. Instructors can refer back to the topic outline throughout the class to
signal transitions from one topic to the next, to reinforce the relations among topics and to summarize
what has been discussed at the close of class. Written cues are particularly important in light of students
tendency to record material from the blackboard. However, students often record complex information
(such as long definitions, formulas, or labeled figures and diagrams) incorrectly. When it is important to
record exact wording or an accurate diagram, student learning is better supported with a handout
containing the complete information (Johnstone & Su, 1994). While visual cues and handouts are
particularly helpful to non-native speakers and students with several types of disabilities, they benefit
most students and are well worth the time and effort to use them.
Handouts
Faculty can support student notetaking by distributing handouts for students to use while taking notes or
while reviewing their lecture notes. Students take better notes and review material more effectively if
faculty provide a "scaffold," such as an outline, an overview, or other advance organizer for students to
use while taking notes. The research on notetaking focuses on three kinds of handouts: outlines, graphic
organizers, and copies (full or partial) of the instructors lecture notes. Students benefit from outlines
Students benefit from outlines during lecture because
outlines provide a scaffold for notetaking. Students benefit
from graphic organizers during review because graphic
organizers facilitate understanding of lecture material.
Copies of the instructors notes help students as supplements
to their own notes during review.
during lecture because outlines provide a framework for notetaking. Students benefit from graphic
organizers during review because graphic organizers facilitate understanding of lecture material. Copies
of the instructors notes help students as supplements to their own notes during review.
Outlines. Outlines provide students with headings and subheadings (identifying major and minor topics
of lecture material) and include space to fill in the relevant information in the order it will be delivered
during the lecture. The advantage of providing outlines is that they pre-organize lecture material and
(through headings and subheadings) make clear the distinction between main and supporting ideas.
Studies comparing test performance of students taking notes on outlines provided by the instructor prior
to lecture with students taking notes in their usual manner find that students given outlines take more
complete notes and perform better on exams (Kiewra, DuBois, Christensen, Kim, & Lindberg, 1989;
Cohn, Cohn, & Bradley, 1995). This research suggests that outlines work best when used during lecture
to record the material in the order it is presented. Additionally, an outline can enable students to identify
gaps in their notes that can be corrected later through consultation with the instructor or peers.
Graphic Organizers. Graphic organizers show relations across categories, concepts, or ideas by
organizing information in a two-dimensional format. A common graphic organizer is the matrix, which
shows relations by using rows and columns to represent a concept, its subordinate concepts, and
corresponding information (see Fig. 1: Model of a Matrix). The advantage of graphic organizers is that
they offer students a meaningful way to think through the information in their notes. As students enter
information into the cells of the matrix, they construct a visual representation of the relationships
between ideas or concepts presented in a given lecture. Research suggests that providing students with a
matrix to complete during review facilitates learning, particularly the ability to transfer the material to
new applications and/or synthesize the material (Kiewra, DuBois, Christian, & McShane, 1988; Kiewra
et al., 1991).
Fig 1: Model of a Matrix Diagram
Simple
Schizophrenia
Paranoid
Catatonic
Hebephrenic
% of
Americans
.1
.75
Definition
gradual withdrawl
and disinterest in
the world
Severity
most likely to fend

for themselves
.1
peculiar motor
feeling of being behavior alternating
persecuted
between stupor and
frenzy
series of sudden short
may live in a
attacks over many
marginal way
years
regressive behavior and

total disregard for
personal hygiene
most severe
(Robinson and Kiewa, 1991, p. 456)
Distributing Instructor Notes. Instructors might also consider handing out partial to full copies of their
own lecture notes. As Kiewra argues (I 985a), instructor notes can effectively supplement students
notes by ensuring their accuracy and comprehensiveness. One study found that students who reviewed
instructor notes (and did not take their own) performed better on recall tests than students who took and
reviewed their own notes (Kiewra, 1985b). However, most researchers suggest that instructor notes
should be used only as a supplement to students own notes, since the act of notetaking itself helps
students learn lecture material and because students claim that their own notes are personally meaningful
and represent their personal selection of important points (Bligh, 2000).
Important Caveats: Attendance and Dependence. Handing out the instructors notes raises concerns
about student attendance and students potential dependence on external aids that may hinder mastery of
listening and notetaking skills. Instructors concerned about attendance have several options: 1) make
handouts skeletal enough that students need to be present in class for the notes to be useful; 2) use class
time for activities and interactions that will enhance learning and cannot be reflected in simple written
summary or outline form; 3) document the impact of attendance on exam performance and convey that
information to students; and 4) require attendance. When students receive instructor notes, in the
short-run, students may perform better on tests of mastery of factual material, but in the longrun,
students may not learn to organize ideas because of a dependence on external aids (Kiewra 1985b, 385).
Additional strategies to support student notetaking
Faculty might also consider supporting students active engagement with their notes through short
focused activities during lecture or in office hours. These instructional strategies engage students
actively and can help them remember and understand more of the lecture material. In this section, we
describe five activities.
Instruction on Notetaking and Tips Sheets. Instructors, particularly those who teach first- and
second-year students, can take time in class to talk about how to take notes for their courses. Instructors
can also distribute or post online tips Sheets like the one provided at the end of this paper (see p.7,
below), adding their own suggestions that reflect the discipline they teach and their priorities for the
types of materials they expect students to retain and master.

Providing models. Another option is to show students a sample of complete and correct notes, either
provided by the instructor or borrowed from students in the class. By examining exemplary notes,
students can see what they can do to improve their own notes. Instructors can point out that good notes:
1 . are correct (or have been corrected)
2. identify all main points and selectively include subsidiary points or support
3. connect supporting materials to the appropriate main point
4. connect examples or stories to the concepts they demonstrate
5. summarize the main points of class discussions
6. describe interactive experiences in the classroom
7. include student comments
8. use abbreviations
Peer learning. Faculty can go a step further and allow time for students to compare their notes with
those of a peer in the class, offering each other corrections or missing information. After three to four
minutes of comparison, students can ask the instructor for clarification and elaboration. The process of
peer discussion can also help students identify and articulate questions about the material.
Writing summaries and questions. Asking students to summarize their notes or write discussion
questions engages students in the active use of lecture material. Both activities are easily integrated into
lecture and significantly improve student comprehension and retention of material (King, 1989, 1992).
Instructors can collect summaries and select some common problems and particularly good examples to
discuss with the class. King suggests that faculty can help students formulate questions by offering
"question stems" that lead students to ask the kinds of questions that generate improved comprehension
(e.g., How is ... related to ... ? What is the difference between ... and ... ? In your opinion, what is the
best way to ... ?). Additionally, student summaries and discussion questions provide evidence of how
well students understand the lecture material. To further motivate students, instructors can include
several questions designed by students on their tests and examinations.
Office hours. During office hours faculty can suggest to students ways to improve their notes and help
students identify gaps in notetaking that did (or will) impact test performance and teaming. The
importance of review can also be demonstrated to students when the correct information needed for a
specific exam question is found in their own notes.
Supporting Students with Disabilities
Students with disabilities often experience difficulty taking notes in lectures. Students overcome these
unique challenges by using various support technologies, such as tape recorders, or relying on sign
language interpreters. The UM Office of Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) also offers
support services for students, ranging from providing notetakers who attend lecture with the student and
record lecture notes to captioning videos shown in the course. Faculty can learn more by contacting SSD
directly at (734) 763-3300 or TDD 763-3000.
Notetaking Services for Students with Disabilities. Notetaking services are often used by students with
disabilities, particularly when a sign interpreter is used, a student cannot see the lecturer or visual aids
(the blackboard, transparencies or PowerPoint slides), or a student cannot keep up with the pace of the
lecture. Faculty can help students who have trouble with notetaking by: 1) providing complete notes as a
supplement, 2) providing study guides for exams, 3) giving assignments in written and oral form, and 4)
encouraging students and their notetakers to sit together, close to the instructor.
SSD suggests that faculty begin each new course with a variant of the following comment: "Any student
who feels that he/she may need an accommodation for any sort of disability, please make an
appointment to see me during office hours." This approach preserves students privacy and also
indicates the willingness of the faculty member to provide assistance as needed. (See SSD Faculty
Handbook at http://www.umich.edu/~sswd/ssd/fhb.htmlfor additional suggestions.)
Interpreters. Interpreters make it possible for hearingimpaired students to learn from lectures. However,
classroom interactions and discussions can be fast-paced. Faculty can help hearing-impaired students by
repeating questions raised by students before replying to the question, identifying speakers so that the
student knows who is speaking, and by regulating cross-talk among students (e.g., students can be asked
to raise their hands so that the hearing-impaired student can identify the speaker).
Classroom Management to Support Students with Disabilities. Communicating with disabled students
requires sensitivity and flexibility, particularly with seating arrangements. For example, lip reading
depends upon a clear view of the speaker. Hard-of-hearing or learning disabled students who use a tape
recorder may need to sit close to the instructor. Sight-impaired students may need larger type and an
uncluttered format to be able to read handouts. Faculty can prepare and share handouts of the material
they will present on the board. Sight-impaired students can then take the handouts to SSD to be enlarged
or read onto tape.
Conclusion
The process of notetaking involves a complex set of skills and interactions between instructors and their
students. Current concerns and questions about notetaking offer both a challenge and an opportunity to
re-examine our assumptions about the efficacy of notes and notetaking. They also offer a chance to
re-conceptualize the role of instructors in an educational landscape that may require new approaches to
time-honored practices.
References
Bligh, D. (2000). Whats the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.
Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.
Cohn, E., Cohn, S., & Bradley, J. J. (1995). Notetaking, working memory, and learning in principles of
economics. Research in Economic Education, 26 (4), 291-307.
Davies, B. (1976). Physics lectures and student notes. Physics Education, 11 (1), 33-36.
Fahmy, J. J., & Bilton, L. (1990a). Lecture comprehension and notetaking for L2 students.
(Unpublished.) (ERIC Document Reproduction No. 323785)
Fahmy, J. J., & Bilton, L. (1990b). Listening and notetaking in higher education. (Unpublished.) (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. 366189)
Hartley, J., & Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educational
Review, 20 (1), 30-37.
Howe, M. J. (1970). Notetaking strategy, review and long-term retention of verbal information. Journal
of Educational Research, 63(6),285.
Johnstone, A. H., & Su, W. Y. (1994). Lectures- a learning experience? Education in Chemistry, 31 (1),
75-76, 79.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Providing the instructors notes: An effective addition to student notetaking.
Educational Psychologist, 20 (1), 33-39.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructors
notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10 (4), 378-386.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1987). The qualitative aspects of information -processing
ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14 (3), 110-117.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N., Christensen, M., Kim, S.I., & Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable
account of the notetaking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science, 18 (3),
217-232.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: Comparison of
three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 595-597.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991).
Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (2), 240-245.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students comprehension of lectures.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14 (4), 366-381.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for
learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 303-323.
Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. The Journal of
Educational Research, 77, 93-99.
Palkovitz, R. J., & Lore, R. K. (1980). Notetaking and note review: Why students fail questions based
on lecture material. Teaching of Psychology, 7 (3), 159-16 1.
Peters, D. L. (1972). Effect of notetaking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63 (3), 276-280.
Robinson, D.H., & Kiewra, K.A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in
improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 455-467.
Student Guide to Effective Notetaking and Review

Good notetaking is much more than fast writing. Good notetakers listen actively while they write, think
while they listen, and make conscious choices about what to record. In general, they capture as much of
the lecture content as possible. They take notes they can use for effective learning, and then, most
importantly, they review those notes regularly and with focused attention.
Before Class
Do assigned readings.
* Check your syllabus
* Reading before class will
help you identify, understand,
and organize main points and
content in the lecture and class
discussion
Organize
* Keep one notebook per course
* Loose leaf binders with pockets
give more flexibility in organizing
your notes and allow you to add
handouts and other materials in a
useful order
Engage Fully
* Be positive about learning
* Plan to start listening as soon as
the instructor starts talking: tune
in, have your pen and paper ready,
do not let others distract you.
During Class
Listen for structure.
Be complete and accurate
* Listen for introductory and
concluding phrases and
* Write down key points, theories,
transitions indicating how the
facts, theorems, definitions, etc.
lecture is organized ("Todays
topics will include...")
Keep up.
* Abbreviate! Every subject has
words that can be shortened. For
example, S. for Shakespeare, b/c
for because, w/ for with, or re: for
regarding).
* To save time, use a system of
* If the instructor begins
symbols. For example, use for
* Write down examples and
lecture with questions, write
indicate the point(s) they
resulted in, = for is equal to, > for
them down, then listen for the
demonstrate
is greater than, \ for therefore.
answers
Develop your own symbols too.
* Leave space if you fall behind or
get confused. Circle terms you do
* Write down anything given in list not understand. Write question
* Listen for repetition
form ("Three causes were...").
marks next to places you want to
clarify later, but do not stop taking
notes.
* Listen as closely at the end

of the lecture as at the
beginning. The instructor may * Write down what is written on
summarize the most important the board or projected on screen.
points ("Today we
discussed...").
* Pay attention to the instructors
body language and tone of voice.
Note when she or he uses the most
emphasis or enthusiasm.
* Listen for main points, but
generally, writing more is better.
After Class
Review within in 24 hours.
Reorganize and rehearse.

* Reorganize your notes visually.
* Compare notes with
Create an outline, diagram, or char
classmates to supplement or
to show relationships among
clarify what you wrote down.
concepts.
* Locate gaps or confusion.
* Use different pen colors or
Ask peers, GSIs, or the
highlighters for different types of
instructor for help in class or material, or to distinguish your
during office hours.
ideas from the instructors.
Evaluate your method.

* Are you finding a lot of gaps and
errors?
* Do your notes help you study?

Did they help you on your exams?
If not, what can you do to improve
your notes?
* If you feel that your notes are
* Check for accuracy of
not helping you learn, and you do
* Try writing brief summaries of
material (especially formulas,
not feel that you know how to
the information in you own words.
improve them, seek the assistance
definitions, spelling of terms).
of your instructor or GSI.
* Identify connections with
what you already know and
with material from previous
* Review your notes regularly to
class meetings. How does the
improve your understanding and to
material extend or clarify your
prevent cramming at test time.
knowledge? What is the "big
picture" that is starting to
emerge?
* Make up and answer possible test
questions.
Prepared by Jennifer Lutman, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT), 2001.
Back to Overall Occasional Papers Index

For Faculty || For GSIs || For Departments || For Multicultural Teaching || For Instructional
Technology || For Evaluation and Research || Teaching Strategies || Faculty Mentoring || Resources
& Publications || UM Teaching Awards || Grants || About CRLT
The How and Why of Note Taking

Taking Notes Matters
Since the 1970s, scholarly research has confirmed time and again that note
taking, whether over reading or lecture, on average improves student
performance. 1
Obviously, the product of good note taking permits students a means to review the
material. (Scholars refer to this as the external storage function of note taking).
However, researchers also emphasize that the experience of processing lecture into
written code facilitates more advanced learning (the encoding function). 2 One
recent study concluded:
When people are more actively engaged in material that they are trying to
learn, such as by taking notes, their memory improves, particularly at deeper
levels of comprehensionNote taking may encourage people to elaborate
on and better structure and organize the material being learned. 3
Students benefit from the act of creating their own study materials. As some
researchers have found, Individuals retain materials that they have generated
better than materials that have been generated by others and given to them.
Students who perform the best on targeted material tend to be those who created
their own study outlines, study questions, and study questions with answers. 4
Note taking is a valuable life skill. It is widely required in work meetings, as part
of ones preparation for talks, and as the basis for research and creative work of
one kind or another.
How Hard Can It Be?

Quite a bit is involved in taking a solid set of lecture notes. Consider this:
The cognitive effort in note taking from lecture is akin to that brought to
bear in playing a game of chess. 5
One source compared skilled note taking to an act of original composition.

Taking notes on lecture demands that one process information and arguments
under severe time pressure and remain attentive and effective throughout the
lecture. Good note taking is a highly complex task that requires quick
comprehension and translation of the lecture as well as the capacity to anticipate
and control mental operations.
Tips for Students

The Cornell method and other highly organized methods of note taking emphasize
both the external storage and encoding functions (see an example and explanation
at http://lsc.sas.cornell.edu/Sidebars/Study_Skills_Resources/cornellsystem.pdf).
These methods are based on the following best practices:
Date and label notes at the top of the page

Draw a margin and keep all running lecture notes to one side
Use other side for organization, summarizing, and labeling
Indent to show the importance of ideas
Skip lines to indicate change of ideas
Leave space for elaboration and clarification
Use numbers, letters, and marks to indicate details
Be selective
Abbreviate when possible
Paraphrase
Use underlining, circling, and different colors of ink to show importance
Cover one side of notes to study 6
The Importance and Practicality of Modeling and Practicing

One school of thought pushes beyond simply a recommendation that faculty offer
students a tip sheet on note taking and urges a more involved approach that
addresses student lack of motivation for taking notes. This approach offers students
regular instructor feedback and peer review of the quality of their notes and their
progress as note takers. 7 Yet, arguably, this strategy makes a fetish of note
taking, ignores that note taking is a tool for the individual and is therefore
personalized, and wildly underestimates the time constraints under which most
faculty labor.
A less complicated, time-saving tack is to simply model a good set of notes with
ones own lecture using a document camerai.e. outline, doodle, jot, and
organize as one is speaking. Whatever form it takes, modeling should be used
multiple times early on in the semester. The beauty of this tack is that it
complements lecture rather than competes with it for time. In the last 5-10 minutes
of class, one could have students practice summarizing the main points and
significance of lecture.
One certainly should encourage student practice with occasional reminders about
the significance of note taking to their learning. For example, offer some kind of
credit (extra credit or assignment credit) if they apply what they have seen to their
note taking on lectures. 8
1
Mark Bohay et al, "Note Taking, Review, Memory, and Comprehension." American Journal of
Psychology 124: 1, 63-73, Academic Search Complete, EBSCO host (accessed May 4, 2011).
2
Norman A. Stahl, James R. King, William A. Henk, Enhancing Students Note taking through Training
and Evaluation, Journal of Reading 34: 8 (May 1991), 614-615.
3
Mark Bohay, Daniel P. Blakely, Andrea K. Tamplin and Gabriel A. Radvansky, Note Taking, Review,
Memory, and Comprehension,American Journal of Psychology 124: 1 (January 2011), 70-71.
4
Paul W. Foos and Joseph J. Mora, "Student Study Techniques and the Generation Effect." Journal of
Educational Psychology 86 (1994): 4: 567, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 3,
2011). This article maintains that students generation of materials enhances student performance, but,
specifically, on elements of the test targeted by the generated materials. One experiment ensured that the
student- and instructor-generated test items were the same so as to avoid the problem of students simply
focusing on easier aspects of the material and therefore testing well.
5
Annie Piolat, Thierry Olive, Ronald T. Kellogg, Cognitive Effort during Note Taking, Applied
Cognitive Psychology 19 (2005), 298-299.
6
Stahl, Enhancing Students Note taking through Training and Evaluation, 615.
7
One example: the instructor is to ask students to fill out a profile in order to ascertain if any particular
conditions exist in the class that might hinder note takinglanguage or physical issues, for example. The
professor then can suggest ways to address these, i.e. study partners, sitting at the front, drawing on
academic support services, etc. Students also complete a self-evaluation of their habits as note takers
before and after a sequence of peer evaluations of their note taking. See Stahl, Enhancing Students Note
taking through Training and Evaluation, 616-621.
8
Stahl, Enhancing Students Note taking through Training and Evaluation,615-616.
Note-Taking Skills
An Introduction
The Learning Centre http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au
Effective note-taking from lectures and readings is an essential skill for university study. Good notetaking allows a permanent record of relevant points that you can integrate with your own writing, and
that can be used for exam revision. Taking reliable, accurate notes also reduces the risk of plagiarism.
It helps you distinguish where your ideas came from and how you think about those ideas.
Effective note-taking requires:
recognising the main ideas
A Few Tips About Format
identifying the information relevant to your task
Set out your notebooks so that you have a

similar format every time you take notes.
having a system of note-taking that works for you

reducing the information to note and diagram format
where possible, putting the information in your own words
recording the source of the information
Reading Note-taking Strategies

1. Be Selective and Systematic
As you take notes from a written source, keep in mind that not all of
the text will be relevant to your needs. Think about your purpose:
Columns that distinguish the source

information and your thoughts can be
helpful.
Headings that include bibliographic
reference details of the sources of
information are also important.
The use of colour to highlight major
sections, main points and diagrams
makes notes easy to access.
Are you reading for a general understanding of a topic or concept?

Are you reading for some specific information that may relate to the topic of an assignment?
Before you start to take notes, skim the text. Then highlight or mark the main points and any relevant information you may
need to take notes from. Finallykeeping in mind your purpose for readingread the relevant sections of the text carefully
and take separate notes as you read.
2. Identify the Purpose and Function of a Text

Whether you need to make notes on a whole text or just part of it, identifying the main purpose and function of a text is
invaluable for clarifying your note-taking purposes and saving time.
Read the title and the abstract or preface (if there is one).
Read the introduction or first paragraph.
Skim the text to read topic headings and notice how the text is organised.
Read graphic material and predict its purpose in the text.
Your aim is to identify potentially useful information by getting an initial overview of the text (chapter, article, pages etc.) that
you are reading. Ask yourself: Will this text give me the information I require and where might it be located in the text?
3. Identify How Information is Organised

Most texts use a range of organising principles to develop ideas. Organising principles tend to sequence information into a
logical hierarchy. Some organising principles might be:
past ideas to present ideas
the steps or stages of a process or event
most important point to least important point
well known ideas to least known ideas

simple ideas to complex ideas
general ideas to specific ideas
the largest parts to the smallest parts of something
problems and solutions
causes and results
An Example:
Read the text below on Underwater Cameras and then look at how the text is presented in note form. The most important
words to include in notes are the information words. These are usually nouns, adjectives and verbs .
Underwater Cameras
Sample
Regular cameras obviously will not function

underwater
Though
unless
housings
specially
are
protected.
available
for
waterproofing 35 mm and roll-film cameras,
Notes
can be used above or below the water. Most
2. Amphibious
cameras
are
snapshot
models,
but one, Nikonos, is a true 35 mm system

camera.
Though
lenses
and
film
must
be
changed on the surface, the camera will

otherwise function normally at depths down
a) snapshot models
b) Nikonos (35 mm)
Lenses

of these , which have focal lengths of 90
water; the other two of these, which have

focal lengths of 90 mm and 35 mm, will
Underwater
special housing necessary
to 70 mm. Four lenses are available : two

mm and 35 mm, will function in air and
text
1. Regular Cameras

these
the
Underwater Cameras
a few special models are amphibious they

of
from
Cameras
i) air & water 35 mm

90 mm
ii) only under water 28 mm
15 mm
function in air and water; the other two,

the 28 and 15 mm lenses, work only under
water. Lenses are also available from other
manufacturers.
Source: Freeman M. The encyclopaedia of practical photography London, Quartro Books 1994, p. 283
4. Include Your Thoughts

When taking notes for an assignment it is also helpful to record your thoughts at the time. Record your thoughts in a separate
column or margin and in a different colour to the notes you took from the text. Rule up your notebook into two columns before
you begin. Note down:
Any ideas you have for your assignment as you read.
How you think you could use this information in your assignment.
Listening Note-taking Strategies

Many of the strategies for reading note-taking also apply to listening note-taking. However, unlike reading, you cant stop
a lecture and review as you listen (unless you listen to a taped lecture). Therefore preparation prior to listening can greatly
improve comprehension. When you take notes:
Have a clear purpose.
Recognise main ideas.
Select what is relevant. You do not need to write down everything that is said.
Have a system for recording information that works for you.
Lecture Survival Tips

Strategies to Increase Comprehension and Improve Note-Taking
Before the Lecture
During the Lecture
After the Lecture
Revise the previous

lecture or tutorial
Be on time and sit near the front
Revise lecture notes

within 24 hours. Tidy up
your handwriting and fill
in any missing bits.
Pre-read about the topic

Check the pronunciation
of any new words
or discipline-specific
language in the
prereadings.
Rule up pages according
to your note-taking
system. This saves time in
the lecture.
Distinguish between main points, elaboration,

examples, repetition, waffle, restatements and new
points by:
Listening for structural cues (signpost/transition
words, introduction, body and summary stages)
Looking for non verbal cues (facial expression ,
hand and body signals)
Looking for visual cues (copy the content of any
visual aids, note references to names and sources)
Listening for phonological cues ( voice change in
volume, speed, emotion and emphasis) which often
indicates important information.
Reviewing makes
remembering lectures
much easier.
Write a short summary
of the lecture (1
paragraph) in your own
words
Attach any handouts to
your lecture notes.
Use Symbols and Abbreviations

The use of symbols and abbreviations is useful for notetaking in lectures, when speed is essential. When you use symbols
and abbreviations, develop a system; use commonly used or personal symbols and abbreviations. However, you also need to
be familiar with the symbols or abbreviations frequently used in your particular field of study (e.g. chemical symbols or Greek
alphabet). Its important to be consistent when using symbols and abbreviations so you will remember what they represent
and be able to use them with ease.
Abbreviations
These can be classified into three categories:
1. Common
Many are derived from Latin.
Symbols
c.f. (confer) = compare
Symbols for note-taking are as follows:
i.e. (id est) = that is
equals/ is equal to/ is the same as
e.g (exempla grate) = for example
is not equal to/ is not the same as
is equivalent to
therefore, thus, so
and, more, plus
>
more than, greater than
<
less than
less, minus
A or a (alpha) B or b (beta)
gives, causes, leads to, results in/ from,

is produced by
3. Personal
rises, increases by
Here you can shorten any word that is commonly used in lectures.
falls, decreases by
diff =different
proportional to
Gov = government
not proportional to
NB (nota benne) =note well

no. (numero) = number
etc. (et cetera)= and so on
2. Discipline-Specific
In chemistry:
Au for gold, Mg for magnesium
In the case of quantities and concepts, these are represented by
Greek letters in many fields.
NEC = necessary
Acronyms
Some abbreviations are so well known and widely used that they have become an Acronyman abbreviation pronounced
as a word. For example , the word laser was originally an abbreviation for Light Amplification by Stimulation Emission of
Radiation. It now is a noun in its own right.
2. Use Concept Maps and Diagrams

You can also set down information in a concept map or diagram. This presents the information in a visual form and is unlike
the traditional linear form of note-taking. Information can be added to the concept map in any sequence.
Concept maps can easily become cluttered, so use both facing pages of an open A4 note book. This will give you an
A3 size page to set out your concept map and allow plenty of space for adding ideas and symbols.
Begin in the middle of the page and add ideas on branches that radiate from the central idea or from previous branches.
Arrows and words can be used to show links between parts of the concept map.
Colour and symbols are important parts of concept maps, helping illustrate ideas and triggering your own thoughts.
Adapted from: Study Skills for Academic Writing, Phoenix 1994. Prepared by Gwyn Jones and Pam Mort, The Learning
Centre, The University of New South Wales 2010. This guide may be distributed for educational purposes, and the
content may be adapted with proper acknowledgement. The document itself must not be digitally altered or rebranded.
Email: learningcentre@unsw.edu.au
NOTE-TAKING IN THE 21st CENTURY:

TIPS FOR INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS
Allison Boye
Perhaps when many of us were college students, taking notes in class meant one thing: listening to
lectures and writing down whatever we thought was important. If we were lucky, our professor might
write something on the chalkboard. Taking notes was something we learned how to do because we had
to (although we might not have done it perfectly!). However, the classroom and note-taking experience
is much different for todays college student, who has likely grown up with student-centered learning as
well as PowerPoint as a popular mode of delivery, high school teachers shackled by standardized
testing, and professors who provide lecture notes and printed slides packed with information. Todays
student might perceive the note-taking process as less fundamental to their ultimate success in a
course, unaware of its foundational benefits to their learning and unequipped to engage in it
effectively. This paper will address the cognitive advantages of note-taking and the struggles many
students face, offering strategies for instructors to help students take better notes.
WHY BOTHER TAKING NOTES?

This is a question many students might ask, especially if they have access to lectures and lecture notes
outside of the classroom. Indeed, its a fair question! Nevertheless, the body of research on note-taking
reveals that in general, taking notes in class and reviewing those notes later positively impacts student
learning (for instance, Bligh 2000; DeZure, Kaplan, & Deerman 2001; Kiewra et al 1991). While this
might not be news to many of us in higher education, given the ubiquity of slideware programs like
PowerPoint that make it easy to simply provide students with copies of our presentations, it is smart to
stop and highlight the specific reasons to encourage note-taking in our students.
First, research shows that students recall more lecture material if they record it in their notes (Bligh
2000), and ultimately perform better on tests of recall and synthesis than students who do not take
notes (Kiewra et al 1991). More specifically, note-taking serves two distinct functions for students:
external storage and cognitive encoding.
External storage: Notes obviously serve as a place to keep knowledge and information for later
review the purpose most students likely see as the primary purpose. This is undoubtedly a
vital function, particularly when paired with review of those notes (Kiewra 1985; Kiewra et al
1991).
Encoding of information: What students might not realize is that the note-taking process also
serves a vital function in helping to write the information on the brain. The literature (Foos,
Mora & Tkacz 1994; Katayama 2005) shows that people better retain materials that they have
generated themselves (i.e., personal notes) than materials generated by others (i.e., someone
elses notes), and that students actually begin to learn and memorize during note-taking,
Texas Tech University
Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center
July 2012
particularly when engaged in deep comprehension (Piolat, Olive, & Kellog 2005; Williams &
Eggert 2002).
Ultimately, the combination of both functions makes note-taking a crucial part of successful learning.
In other words, simply reviewing any notes is less effective than reviewing notes you took yourself, but
just taking notes without engaging in review is not an effective strategy alone.
STUDENT NOTE-TAKING SKILLS (OR LACK THEREOF)

Encouraging students to take notes and explaining the importance of the process is just the first step
towards success. Unfortunately, student notes are often inaccurate or incomplete, especially when
recording diagrams, figures, equations, and other crucial material (DeZure, Kaplan, & Deerman 2001;
Johnstone & Su 1994). Students also often struggle with following cues and prioritizing information or
culling out what is most important; research indicates that students tend to record verbatim notes
without much evidence of generative processing (Bretzing & Kulhavy 1981; Huxham 2010; Kiewra
1985). In some studies, even the best note-takers included less than 3/4 of critical issues in their notes,
with first-year students recording on average only 11% (in Potts 1993). Further, most students make
limited use of techniques such as abbreviations, diagrams, and symbols that can increase their notetaking efficiency and improve their ability to record more information (Badger et al 2001; Sutherland,
Badger, & White 2002). Finally, students in general can demonstrate a lack of self-awareness, believing
that they do take suitable notes (Bonner & Holliday 2006).
REINFORCING EFFECTIVE NOTE-TAKING

Given the importance of note-taking, married with students struggles with the process, it is imperative
that instructors consider the role we could play in helping our students grow as learners and succeed in
our classrooms. Note-taking is, after all, an incredibly complex task that requires many cognitive
resources (Peverly et al 2007; Stefanou, Hoffman & Vielee 2008). And while it might be tempting to
assume that the tech-savvy Millennial generation does not want to take notes, they are still requesting
lecture notes from instructors, and one study (Marsh & Sink 2010) suggests that 74% of students prefer
to have access to slide handouts prior to lecture to help with note-taking during class. So what can we
do as instructors to help them record accurate information, engage with the material during class, and
improve their note-taking skills?
PowerPoint Slides: To Supply or not Supply?
Many instructors struggle with this decision. Some are reluctant to distribute handouts of PowerPoint
presentations or lecture notes for fear that students will substitute them for class attendance, wont
pay attention during class, or will fail to develop note-taking skills. Conversely, others feel that such
handouts allow students to pay more attention to lecture by relieving them of the need to write as
much, and ensure that students have accurate information.
While the note-taking process is important for student learning, new research also reveals that
providing student with guided notes does not harm performance on exams and can help students more
accurately record critical points and examples (Austin, Lee, & Carr 2004; Marsh & Sink 2010; Rayver &
Maydosz 2010). Kiewra (1985) likewise reported that students who review detailed instructor notes
July 2012
generally outperform students who only review their own notes on fact-based tests (1985), and others
(Babb & Ross 2009) observe that guided notes could help improve student participation.
While this research is compelling, it does not suggest that instructors should simply begin providing
students with full transcripts of lectures! Although full instructors notes are better than students
notes, it is crucial to bear in mind that they are not as useful when higher-order learning is required
(Kiewra 1985; Neef, McCord & Ferreri 2006; Potts 1993).
Perhaps the compromise that best assists students is the provision of partial or guided notes. Skeletal
outlines or handouts can provide a scaffold for accurate student note-taking while still requiring their
attention, active engagement, and attendance. Guided rather than complete notes provided prior to
class time can also allow students to prepare and review material for concepts in need of further
explanation (Babb & Ross 2009), with the added benefits of increasing student engagement with the
content and improving their accuracy. (Preparing such notes can also help you prioritize and focus your
lecture content!) Guided or partial-note handouts can take on several forms, such as outlines, graphic
organizers like charts or matrices, or printable PowerPoint slide handouts that provide spaces to take
notes and/or in which portions of slides are left blank for students to fill in. If you are still concerned
about the impact on attendance, be sure to use class time for interactions that cannot be replicated on
a handout (DeZure, Kaplan, & Deerman 2001), or even consider a specific attendance policy.
For more ideas about creating effective handouts for students and using PowerPoint to
encourage participation, see this website from
the University of Minnesota Center for Teaching and Learning:
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/powerpoint/handouts/index.html
Additional Strategies to Consider

Offering students guided notes is just one option for helping them improve their notes and note-taking
skills in general. There are many other ways that we can provide guidance along the way. Here are a
few to consider.
Space is important. If you do decide to offer your students some form of handout or guides for
their notes, keep in mind the amount of space you provide for their actual note-taking. This
amount of space has a major impact on the actual amount of notes students will make (Potts
1993). That is, the more space you provide, the more they will likely write! Consider this
especially in regard to those notes pages that PowerPoint provides; a tiny slide with a few
lines next to it might not lead to detailed notes.
Provide clear cues and good pacing. Because students struggle perhaps unwittingly to
determine what information is important enough to write down or read subtle cues instructors
might provide, it is also important to make an effort to offer transparent cues and follow a
July 2012
reasonable pace. We speak at a much faster rate than students can write: researchers
measured the average rate of speech at 2 3 words per second, while the average handwriting
speed is only .2 - .3 words per second (Makany, Kemp, & Dror 2008).
Verbal and visual cues can help students recognize critical material as well as important
structural or organizational relationships. Verbal cues might include phrases such as, The 4
main arguments are, A major development was, Applying that concept, or This was
an example of, to name just a few (DeZure, Kaplan, & Deerman 2001). Visual cues might
include diagrams or charts, or key statements in writing on the board or on a slide. One popular
approach is to provide a topic outline at the start of class. Written cues are especially important,
given students proclivity to record material from the blackboard or PowerPoint. However,
keep in mind that filling slides with text is not an effective strategy; too much text leads to
cognitive overload for students and potentially fewer notes, or conversely, blind transcription.
Indeed, one study (Huxham 2010) found that slide cues alone for student notes led to lower
quality notes in terms of contextualization or understanding. Stefanou, Hoffman, & Vielee
(2008) confirm that in lectures where the amount of material presented in visual scaffolds is
neither too much nor too little, students write more (p. 15), so balance is key. Further,
remember that students frequently record information inaccurately, so if you feel that exact
wording or a perfect diagram are necessary, consider providing that material on a handout.
Regarding pace, research indicates that a moderate speed of delivery, around 135 words per
minute, best supports student note-taking (Peters 1972; DeZure, Kaplan & Deerman 2001). If
you are unsure whether you utilize a reasonable pace, simply poll your students and ask for
feedback. In addition, more difficult or unfamiliar material will warrant a slightly slower pace, so
work to balance the simple and familiar with the complex and new material (DeZure, Kaplan &
Deerman 2001; Potts 1993).
Try the pause procedure. One technique that can enhance note-taking and student learning
simply involves incorporating brief, 2-minute pauses several times during lecture to allow
students to discuss and rework their notes together. A study by Ruhl, Hughes, and Schloss
(1987) discovered that when using this procedure, students performed significantly better -- as
much as two letter grades better! -- on a free recall and comprehensive test than students who
simply listened to lecture. In other words, if we talk less, students learn more! Undoubtedly,
these counterintuitive results supports the research that suggests that students ability to retain
information decreases substantially after 10-20 minutes, and that reinforcing presented
information increases student learning. Another study (Huxham 2010) also found that providing
students with an interactive window during lecture to discuss the material and compare notes
led to better comprehension and higher test scores than simply providing students with notes.
Expose students to alternative and non-linear note-taking techniques. Students might not
realize that there is more than one way to take notes. While many might comfortably and
successfully rely on the traditional linear model, many other models have surfaced in recent
years that might be more effective for some students if they are familiar with those models.
The Cornell Method, for instance, involves creating separate columns for notes and
cues/questions, with a summary at the bottom of the page. Non-linear approaches such as
concept maps, matrices, or even the Smart Wisdom method from the UK can also be
beneficial. In fact, a study by Makany, Kemp, & Dror (2008) found that non-linear note-takers
performed on average 20% better than linear control groups measuring comprehension and
July 2012
metacognitive skills, surmising that non-linear strategies offer a visually accessible format that
decreases cognitive load and enables deeper understanding through improved knowledge
management and organization.
Teach students how to take notes. Perhaps the most important, most effective strategy we can
employ to help our students is merely to be transparent and actually explain to them what good
note-taking entails. While it might be easiest to assume our students already know what to do,
or to lament that they dont know what to do, it is always better to take action and provide
them with the right tools! Consider talking to your students early in the semester about your
expectations for their engagement and participation in your course, and about how they can be
most successful in their note-taking. You might even demonstrate some strategies for them, or
ask to peruse their notes once or twice to assess their accuracy and completeness. In addition,
see the handout at the end of this article and consider providing it as a resource for your
students.
For more information on alternative note-taking models, please see the following:
The Cornell Method:

http://lsc.cornell.edu/Sidebars/Study_Skills_Resources/cornellsystem.pdf
Concept Mapping:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm
Smart Wisdom Method:

http://www.drewhajduk.co.uk/index.php/smart-wisdom-note-taking-made-easy/
Matrix Note-Taking:
http://cte.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_resources/tips/building_note_taking_skills_for_students.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoU257QR_f0
CONCLUSION
It is clear that note-taking remains an integral part of the learning process, even on our high-tech
campuses and for our digital native students. While some strategies might have changed over time,
students will always need help in fine-tuning their skills, and if we want our students to be successful
learners, it cant hurt for us to offer a little guidance. For more information on note-taking, see the
additional resources and references below, and feel free to contact the TLPDC with any questions you
might have.

July 2012
TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE NOTETAKING1

A GENERAL NOTE:
Taking good notes during class is an important part of the learning process even when your instructor
provides lecture notes, outlines, or PowerPoint slides. The process of note-taking actually helps you
learn and cognitively store the material in addition to providing you with something to review later.
Effective note-taking is more than just writing quickly, too! Here are a few tips to help you take the best
notes possible.
BEFORE CLASS
Do your assigned readings and review any notes your instructor has provided for you
prior to class. This will help you prepare for the class period and recognize if there are
questions you might need to ask or material in need of clarification.
Stay organized. Keep your notes in one place you can easily access later.
DURING CLASS
Pay attention to cues from the instructor and prioritize information. Instructors
often give signals during class about whats important (which doesnt always include saying
write this down, its important!). Look for cues such as:
o Material written on the blackboard or whiteboard
o Repetition
o Emphasis through tone of voice, body language, number of examples, or time spent on a
subject.
o Word signals (such as first, second, third or Now well discuss)
o Reviews, summaries, lists, and questions
Keep your notes brief. It is time-consuming to write down every single word spoken or
provided on a slide! Here are some strategies for efficient note-taking:
o Abbreviate. Think of meaningful ways to shorten words you have to write frequently.
(For instance, b/c for because, w/ for with, or natl for national)
o Write key words and shortened phrases rather than complete sentences.
o Use meaningful symbols when possible. (For instance, use an arrow to indicate results or
causality, = to indicate equivalent relationships, or develop your own system!)
o Leave space to fill in additional information if you fall behind.
o Make notes for yourself, such as circling terms you dont understand or writing question
marks.
Adapted from information from the Academic Skills Center at Dartmouth College and the Center for Research on Learning and
Teaching at the University of Michigan.

July 2012
Make your notes accurate and complete.

o Write down key points, theories, definitions, formulas, facts, etc.
o Make note of diagrams and charts, and do so correctly.
o Write down important examples connected to key points.
o Keep your notes organized. Try using bullet points, indentations, numbering, outlines, or
other graphic organizers (such as charts, matrices, lists, etc.) Date your notes and
consider adding page numbers as well.
o While you should keep your writing brief, this is to allow you to write as much important
information as you can. Studies show that students who take more notes perform better!
AFTER CLASS
Review your notes regularly, not just the night before an exam.
Compare notes with classmates to supplement or clarify your own.
Identify concepts that are still confusing or unclear, and ask your instructor for assistance.
Reorganize your notes as needed
o Try summarizing the information or creating additional outlines, diagrams, concept
maps, and charts.
o Use various colored pens/highlighters to help identify important information.
Evaluate the quality of your notes.
o Are there lots of errors or gaps?
o Are they helping you study? If not, think about making changes to your notetaking methods.
o Ask your instructor or TA to review your notes and make suggestions for
improvement.

July 2012
ADDITIONAL ONLINE RESOURCES:

Building your Note-Taking and Study Skills: A Guide for Students. From the University of Waterloo
Centre for Teaching Excellence.
http://cte.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_resources/tips/building_note_taking_skills_for_students.html
Research on Student Notetaking: Implications for Faculty and Graduate Student Instructors, by
DeZure, Kaplan, and Deerman. University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/CRLT_no16.pdf
Large Class FAQ: Notetaking, from the Schreyer Institute at Penn State University.
http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/pdf/Large_Class_FAQ_Notetaking.pdf
REFERENCES
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 (4), 314-320.
Babb, K.A. & Ross, C. (2009). The timing of online lecture slide-availability and its effect on attendance,
participation, and exam performance. Computers and Education, 52, 868-881.
Badger, R. White, G., Sutherland, P., & Haggis, T. (2001). Note perfect: An investigation of how
students view taking notes in lectures. System, 29, 405 417.
Bauer, Al, & Koedinger, K.R. (2007). Selection based note-taking applications. In Proceedings of the
ACM CHI 07 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 981-990). New York: ACM Press.
Bonner, J.M. & Holliday, W.G. (2006). How college science students engage in note-taking strategies.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (8), 786-818.
Bretzing, B.H. & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Notetaking and passage style. Journal of Educational Psychology,
73, 242 250.
DeZure, D., Kaplan, M, & Deerman, M.A. (2001). Research on student notetaking: Implications for
faculty and graduate student instructors. CRLT Occasional Paper No. 16. University of Michigan.
Foos, P.W., Mora, J.J., & Tkacz,S. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 86 (4), 567-576.
Huxham, M. (2010). The medium makes the message: Effects of cutes on students lecture notes. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 179 188.
Katayama, A.D., Shambaugh R.N & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic
note taking. Computers in Teaching, 32 (2), 129-131.
Kiewra, K.A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational
Psychologist, 20 (1), 23-32.
July 2012
Kiewra, K.A. et al. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83
(2), 240-245.
Johnstone, A.H. & Su, W.Y. (1994). Lectures a learning experience? Education in Chemistry, 31 (1), 7576. 79.
Larson, R.B. (2009). Enhancing the recall of presented material. Computers and Education, 53, 1278
1284.
Makany, T., Kemp, J. & Dror, I.E. (2008). Optimising the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid
for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, X, 1 17.
Marsh, E.J., & Sink, H.E. (2010). Access to handouts of presentation slides during lecture: Consequences
for learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 691-706.
Neef, N.A., McCord, B.E., & Ferreri, S.J. (2006). Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during
lectures on college students quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39 (1), 123-130.
Peters, D.L. (1972). Effect of note taking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63 (3), 276-280.
Peverly , S.T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What
predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 167-180.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R.T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 19, 291-312.
Potts, B. (1993). Improving the quality of student notes. ERIC/AE Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Assessment and Evaluation. Document number ED366645.
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 (3), 189 200.
Reimer, Y.J., Brimhall, E., Cao, C., & OReilly, K. (2009). Empirical user studies inform the design of an enotetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education. Computers and
Education, 52, 893-913.
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C.A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987, Winter) Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture
recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.
Stefanou, C., Hoffman, L, & Vielee, N. (2008). Note-taking in the college classroom as evidence of
generative learning. Learning Environments Research, 11, 1 17.
Sutherland, P., Badger, R., & White, G. (2002). How new students take notes at lectures. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 26, 378 388.
Tapp, S. & Boye, A. (2012). Will these be posted online? Note-taking in the 21st century. Presented at
the annual Jumpstart conference, Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center, Texas
Tech University. Lubbock, TX. August 16th.
Williams, R.L., & Eggert. A. (2002). Note taking predictors of test performance. Teaching of Psychology,
29(3), 234-237.
July 2012
APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 19: 291312 (2005)
Published online 17 December 2004 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1086
Cognitive Effort during Note Taking

ANNIE PIOLAT1*, THIERRY OLIVE2 and RONALD T. KELLOGG3
2
1
University of Provence, France
CNRS and University of Poitiers, France
3
Saint Louis University, USA
SUMMARY
Note taking is a complex activity that requires comprehension and selection of information and
written production processes. Here we review the functions, abbreviation procedures, strategies, and
working memory constraints of note taking with the aim of improving theoretical and practical
understanding of the activity. The time urgency of selecting key points and recording them while
comprehending new information at the same time places significant demands on the central
executive and other components of working memory. Dual- and triple-task procedures allow the
measurement of the momentary cognitive effort or executive attention allocated to note taking.
Comparative data show that note taking demands more effort than reading or learning. However, it
requires less effort than the creative written composition of an original text. Copyright # 2004 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Note taking occurs in frequent and various everyday life situations. To make purchases, to
plan future events and activities, to study for examinations, to prepare a technical talk, to
design a model in an industry, and to record the minutes of work meetings are a few
examples. Furthermore, the reasons why individuals take notes are highly variable.
Despite the diversity of contexts and intentions, all note taking entails recording
information collected from one or several sources. Such a record constitutes a stable
external memory that is intended to help to plan a future activity, to learn, to think, or to
create. It is important to understand this common activity for both theoretical and practical
reasons. Although a large body of studies had investigated the different techniques that
note takers use and their effectiveness, surprisingly few have focused on the cognitive
processes underlying note taking.
For cognitive psychologists, it is important to study the mental operations that underlie
note taking in addition to studying the product itself, as linguists do. A cognitive analysis
is even more critical to understanding when it is recognized that note taking cannot be
equated to simply copying what is heard, observed or thought. On the contrary, in a large
majority of cases, note taking implies comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) and
*Correspondence to: Dr A. Piolat, Centre for Research on Psychology of Cognition, Language and Emotion,
Universite de Provence, 29 avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1, France.
E-mail: annie.piolat@up.univ-aix.fr
Contract/grant sponsor: French ACI programme Ecole et Sciences Cognitives.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
292
A. Piolat et al.
written production (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001) that is similar to original composition.
Note takers, as readers, must comprehend information and, as learners, try to store
information in long-term memory by writing it down. As writers, note takers must select
the information to record and format it in ways that differ from the source material. They
employ abbreviating operations, syntactical short-cuts, paraphrasing statements, and often
a physical formatting of the notes that differs from the linear text of written source material
(Piolat, 2001). Accordingly, the goal of a cognitive analysis is to specify the processes,
knowledge, and working memory resources that note takers activate when they produce
this unique kind of written product.
The present review will be organized as follows. We begin by characterizing the written
products (the notes) and the reasons for their production. We then focus on the central
attribute of note taking, namely, the speed with which both comprehension and production
processes must be carried out. This brings forward the important role of working memory
in note taking (Baddeley, 2000). Next, we describe the dual- and triple-task methods that
are fruitful for measuring the cognitive effort required by note taking (Olive, Kellogg, &
Piolat, 2002). We then report the findings of a series of studies that compare the cognitive
effort involved in note taking versus other language activities (reading comprehension,
verbal learning, and writing original texts). Finally, we examine how different contexts of
note taking affect the cognitive effort involved, including variations in the kind of source
material, the technique of note taking, the source medium, and the amount of information
contained in the source.
THE WHAT AND WHY OF NOTE TAKING

Functions and factors regulating note taking
Notes can be defined as short condensations of a source material that are generated by
writing them down while simultaneously listening, studying, or observing. Their function
is to gather information distributed in a lecture, a book or in any other situation that needs
to be remembered. In other words, notes are external memories whose content is more or
less explicit (Hartley, 1976; Kiewra, 1989; Kiewra & Frank, 1988; Kiewra, DuBois,
Christensen, Kim, & Lindberg, 1989).
The function of notes is not only to provide a record of information, however. Indeed,
even if note taking is frequently used in situations where transmission of information is
crucial, as in academic contexts (Armbruster, 2000; Canelos, Dwyer, Nichols, & Randall,
1984; Kiewra, 1987, 1988a, 1991; Piolat & Boch, 2004; Piolat, Roussey, & Barbier, 2003),
it is also frequent in everyday life and in many professional contexts (Hartley, 2002). In
these situations, manipulating and anticipating relevant information are crucial, as in
judging (Houdek Middendorf & Hoff Macan, 2002), problem solving (Cary & Carlson,
1999), and decision making (Castello & Monereo, 1999), including when the work is
collective (e.g. industrial design, preparation of an exhibition, etc.). In such cases, note
taking could facilitate an ongoing work.
In academic contexts (secondary school and university), after several years of practice,
students develop specific conceptions of the functions of note taking. These representations relate to the purposes of the notes (to record information, to concentrate, etc.), their
content and structure (abbreviating procedures, structure of information, etc.) as well as to
contextual factors (style of the teacher and how important information is signalled, kind of
Note taking
293
course, etc.) that mediate note taking (Badger, White, Sutherland, & Haggis, 2001; Dunkel
& Davy, 1989; Van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994). The students conceptions differ
widely, however, as a function of the kinds of academic courses for which they take notes
(Badger et al., 2001; Hadwin, Kirby, & Woodhouse, 1999).
For two decades, a few experimental studies have analysed different contextual factors
that affect note taking (for a review, see Piolat et al., 2003). When taking notes from lectures,
students are very attentive to a variety of signals given by the lecturer to control
comprehension (fluency, changes in prosody, notes on the blackboard, explicit instructions
for taking notes, etc.; see Isaacs, 1994; Titsworth, 2001). When taking notes from written
documents, typographic and linguistics marks present in the text (title and headings,
summarized statements, connectives, etc.) are used for selecting and structuring the
information (Rickards, Fajen, Sullivan, & Gillespie, 1997; Sanchez, Lorch, & Lorch, 2001).
Notes: Summarized products with different formats
Note taking is often realized under severe time pressure. To take notes quickly, it is
necessary to shorten and reduce information. Such constraints led to the invention of
stenography whose graphic traces and transcribed units are simplified compared with
alphabetical writings. But this technique is so scarcely mastered that note takers rarely use
stenography. They generally fashion their own method of note taking during their studies
or in their profession. This leads to much diversification in note-taking practices (Bretzing,
Kulhavy, & Caterino, 1987; Hartley & Davies, 1978).
Analyses of the structures of notes show that the techniques used when taking notes
affect three levels of language. First, abbreviating procedures may apply on lexical units
(namely spelling; see Figure 1). For instance, end truncation (writing down poss. for
possibility), conservation of the frame of consonants, and suffix contraction (writing
down recoged for recognized) are usual techniques of note taking (cf. Branca-Rosoff,
1998; Kiewra & Benton, 1988; Kiewra, Benton, & Levis, 1987; Lindberg-Risch &
Kiewra, 1990). It is also important to notice that the same note taker can use a variety
of techniques and that these techniques may be quite different from one individual to
another. Moreover, the variation with which a note taker uses these techniques is
astonishing. For example, the same word can be shortened in different ways within the
same note-taking task or from one note-taking task to another.
Despite this variety of techniques, some are automatized sufficiently to be transferred
from one language to another, as indicated by research on note taking in first and second
languages (Chaudron, Loschsky, & Cook, 1994; Clerehan, 1995). For instance, as Figure 1
illustrates, when the lexical structure of two languages is comparable, suffix contraction
can be used in the same way. In the two excerpts in Figure 1, the same student contracted a
suffix both in French (indelle for individuelleindividual in English) and in English
(recoged for recognized). By contrast, because Japanese and French are two languages
that are very differently structured, Japanese students have to discover and to learn new
techniques when they take notes in French (Barbier, Faraco, Piolat, Roussey, & Kida,
2003).
Second, syntax can be transformed by shortening statements. For this purpose, note
takers may adopt a telegraphic style to record the information. They may also use
substitutive techniques, with mathematical ( , ), iconic ( ), Greek-alphabetic ()
symbols for example. Such symbols (dash, arrow, star) are also ways for increasing the
speed of note taking, as for example when they are used in lists (see Figure 2). They further
294
A. Piolat et al.
Figure 1. An example of abbreviating procedures used by the same undergraduate student in first
language (French) and in second language (English)
avoid formatting the syntax of the source material that is heard or read (Branca-Rosoff,
1998; Barbier et al., 2003).
Third, the physical formatting of the notes may be quite different from the usual linear
formatting used when producing a text (for a synthesis, see Piolat, 2001; Piolat et al.,
2003). In general, the format of the notes (tabulation, inserts, etc.) exploits all the physical
space of a sheet in a non-linear way (see Figures 2 and 3). The formatting of the notes
written down on the paper is thus often near that of preparatory rough drafts of an essay
(Kellogg, 1988; Piolat, 1998, 1999; Piolat & Roussey, 1996). They can, however, look
very similar to a polished draft or a linear text (Slotte & Lonka, 2001).
Note-taking strategies use the physical space of the sheet to provide organizational cues
of the information that is recorded (for a synthesis, see Kiewra et al., 1989; Piolat, 2001).
When they take notes during their courses, a majority of students focus on the discourse of
the teacher that they will have to restore during their examination. So, they frequently
resort to a linear method of note taking that gives to their notes a traditional textual
appearance (Piolat & Boch, 2004; Van Meter et al., 1994). However, in some particular
educational settings (observation method for example) or in professional contexts (notes
taken during a meeting) note takers can voluntary pre-select information they wish to
integrate in their notes by following particular and well-defined note structures. For
example, as shown in Figure 3, the note taker has used a variant of the seven-question
method of note taking (Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? How many?).
Note taking and learning outcomes
Research on note taking has generally attempted to delineate the strategies and techniques
that lead to notes that are relevant and effective for knowledge acquisition (Baker &
Note taking
295
Figure 2. Use of abbreviating procedures (e.g. Organizat , cr.) and application of several list
effects with indentations for physical and linguistic formatting of notes in a second language
(English) by undergraduate students
Lombardi, 1985; Barnett, Di Vesta, & Rogozinski, 1981; Kiewra et al., 1991; Kiewra,
DuBois, Christian, & McShane, 1988; Morgan, Lilley, & Boreham, 1988; Norton, 1981;
Norton & Hartley, 1986; Nye, Crooks, Powley, & Tripp, 1984; Peck & Hannafin, 1983;
Russell, Caris, Harris, & Hendricson, 1983; Slotte & Lonka, 1999; Spires, 1993).
However, notetakers must endeavour to learn how to note (Stahl, King, & Henk, 1991),
more especially because they often take notes with difficulty (Suristky, 1992).
The majority of the studies that investigate the effects of note-taking strategies on
learning have focused on the quality of the selection and the organization of the
information that is recorded (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001; Brown & Day, 1983; Dyer, Riley,
& Yekovitch, 1979; Einstein, Morris, & Smith, 1985; Horton, Lovitt, & Christensen, 1991;
Howe, 1974; Kiewra et al., 1987; King, 1992; Ladas, 1980; Nist & Hogrebe, 1987; Oakhill
& Davies, 1991; Piolat, in press; Smith & Tompkins, 1988; Thomas, 1978; Williams &
Eggert, 2002). These studies suggest that nearly all non-linear note-taking strategies (e.g.
with an outline or a matrix framework) benefit learning outcomes more than does the
linear recording of information, with graphs and concept maps especially fostering the
selection and organization of information. As a consequence, the remembering of
information is most effective with non-linear strategies (Dye, 2000; Fisher & Harris,
296
A. Piolat et al.
Figure 3. Notes recorded during the reading of a report in a professional context with the sevenquestion method by a business woman
1974; Frank, 1984; Gruneberg & Mathieson, 1997; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995; Robinson,
Katayama, DuBois, & DeVaney, 1998; Slotte & Lonka, 2000; Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004).
Studies on the impact of note-taking strategies on recall and achievement in exams have
shown that students not only learn when they review their notes, but also while they take
their notes. The notes constitute an external memory that can be used later for studying and
other tasks (Kiewra, 1985a, 1985b; Kiewra, Benton, Kim, Risch, & Christensen, 1995;
Knigth & McKelvie, 1986; Laidlaw, Skok, & McLaughlin, 1993; Peters, 1972). Taking
notes themselves can also increase learning by fostering retention and connections of
information, as seen in the generation effect (NB: The generation effects refers to the
finding that individuals retain materials that they have generated better than materials that
have been generated by others and given to them Foos, Mora, & Tkacz, 1994, 567).
Moreover, students also memorize during note taking, particularly when they engage in
deep comprehension of the source (Williams & Eggert, 2002).
All the studies mentioned above focus on the integration of information in long-term
memory, but fail to explore the role of working memory in note taking. Hartley and Davies
(1978) had considered that attentional capacity of note takers decreased as a function of
several factors such as the importance given to the course and to the information delivered.
Kiewra (1988b, 1989) mentioned the role of working memory in note taking, indicating
that quantity and quality of notes might be quite different according to the working
memory skill of note takers. Scerbo, Warm, Dember, and Grasha (1992) analysed the
nature of the information that was noted and concluded that the attentional capacity of
note takers decreases throughout a course or lecture. Some other authors have considered
Note taking
297
that the role of working memory when note taking is a means to decrease cognitive load
during reading (Yeung, Jin, & Sweller, 1997) or in problem solving (Cary & Carlson,
2001; Cohn, Cohn, & Bradley, 1995). The notes, as an external memory, thus support
retention in working memory of intermediate information or solutions that will be used for
comprehension or for elaborating a final solution. Researchers have neglected to study the
critical relation between working memory and note taking, given that taking notes
involves juggling comprehension and production processes under, at times, severe time
pressure.
MEASURING COGNITIVE EFFORT OF NOTE TAKING

Note taking: A high resource-consuming activity
Note takers have to deal with several problems related to the flow of information,
particularly when taking notes from lectures. When writing notes, the note taker is
constrained by the rate of speech of the lecturer: writing speed is about 0.2 to 0.3 words per
second whereas speaking speed is about 2 to 3 words per second (Foulin, 1995; A. Piolat,
unpublished phD thesis, 1982). In other words, note takers must maintain an active
representation of what they are hearing in order to get sufficient time to exploit and to
transcribe a portion, while being faced with a continuous updating of the message content
as it is spoken.
Even with written documents, note takers must also deal with a temporal pressure,
because their transcription remains slower than their reading. They cannot delay or slow
their writing time too much in order to still be able to maintain in working memory the
intermediate representations that result from comprehension. The temporal management
of information is, therefore, a special difficulty in note taking. Note takers must coordinate
the attention and storage demands of both comprehension and written production. They
are thus constrained by the limited resources of the central executive and storage
components of working memory (Baddeley, 1996).
Working memory, as defined by Baddeley (2000), plays a crucial role in all cognitive
activities that require the temporary storage and manipulation of information, whether the
individual accomplishing these activities is just learning or is highly skilled. Working
memory is engaged in comprehension (Daneman & Merikle, 1996) and in writing
(Kellogg, 1996; Levy & Ransdell, 2002; Olive, 2004). These two activities are also
elicited in note taking.
Although taking notes implies activating automatized processes specifically related to
comprehension (e.g. accessing the mental lexicon) and to writing (e.g. letter formation), it
also implies a set of anticipating and control mental operations (i.e. executive functions)
that are resource demanding. Multiple cognitive processes must be coordinated in rapid
succession for note taking to be successful. Such coordination involves the central
executive component of working memory (Baddeley, 1996, 2000). In note taking, these
controlled operations are for a large part conscious and are subject to a metacognitive
control (Castello & Monereo, 1999; Piolat & Bloch, 2004). In others words, note takers
may deliberately regulate their activity to simultaneously comprehend, evaluate, sort, and
write down the information that must be recorded.
To circumvent the limited capacity of working memory, note takers may choose
between two main strategies, with this choice being susceptible to change while taking
298
A. Piolat et al.
notes (Piolat, 2001; Piolat et al., 2003). They may reduce their activity either to
comprehension (listening or reading and noting the less possible) or to transcription
(without processing the content of what is heard or read in order to be able to transcribe the
maximum of information). In the later case, the on-line verbatim transcription of speech
poses a serious psychomotor problem that note takers solve by giving up the transcription
of letters, words, part of sentences, even of whole sentences, by using abbreviating
procedures. Nevertheless, the use of such procedures is not always effective for resolving
the variation of rate between fast oral production and slow writing.
Even if, for some note takers, the abbreviating procedures do not require working
memory resources, the selection of information cannot be performed in an automatic way,
even when note takers have at their disposal procedures that markedly shorten their notes,
as for example, with concept maps (Piolat, 2001; Piolat & Boch, 2004). Thus, these
activities of comprehension and production of notes are, in large measure, deliberate
operations that require central executive resources.
The cognitive effort (Kahneman, 1973; Kellogg, 1987, 1988, 1994) that note taking
engages should vary according to different situational parameters such as the nature of the
information that is noted, the domain-knowledge of the note taker about the lecture or the
reading, etc. The assessment of the amount of cognitive resources that is required by a
complex cognitive activity may be carried out by several techniques according to the
nature of the task that is investigated. For our part, we elected the dual-task paradigm and
the triple-task techniques.
Measuring cognitive effort with the dual-task paradigm
Cognitive effort refers to the fraction of limited attentional resources that are momentarily
allocated to a process (Kahneman, 1973; Tyler, Hertel, McCallum, & Ellis, 1979). Among
the experimental methods that are available, the dual-task technique has often been used
for evaluating the cognitive effort engaged in higher-order cognitive tasks, such as
comprehension or text production. In these tasks, participants are asked to perform
concurrently a primary task and a secondary probe task. For example, while composing a
text or taking notes, participants must react as fast as possible to tones (by pressing a
mouse button or by saying stop to a microphone linked to a vocal key) that are
periodically distributed in a random interval (in general between 15 and 45 s). The central
executive of working memory must coordinate the concurrent tasks, focus attention when
each tone is detected, and select a motor response as instructed. Reaction time (RT) in this
dual-task situation is compared with a control condition when the probe is responded to as
a single task. The degree of interference in RT (IRT) caused by the primary task provides a
measure of the amount of cognitive effort devoted to composition or note taking. So, if the
composition of two texts whose content is quite different engages a comparable degree of
cognitive effort, the IRT should not differ. Conversely, if one task engages more cognitive
effort than another, then this should be revealed in their respective IRTs. In sum, the longer
the IRT, the more the primary task places demands on the central resources of working
memory.
Using this kind of secondary task, Kellogg (1986, 120; 1994, 17) compared the
cognitive effort of adults engaged in intentional and incidental learning of nonsense
syllables (Kellogg, 1986), text composition (Kellogg, 1994), reading comprehension
(Britton, Glynn, Meyer, & Penland, 1982), and game playing in chess (Britton & Tesser,
1982). As shown on Figure 4, undergraduates composing short texts in the laboratory
Note taking
299
Figure 4. Cognitive effort (in milliseconds) in different processing information tasks [(1) Olive &
Piolat, 2002; (2) Kellogg, 1986; (3) Britton et al., 1982; (4) Britton & Tesser, 1982; (5) Piolat, in
press, and (6) Piolat et al., 1996]. NB: the values of standard errors are not available
expend a high degree of cognitive effort, matched only by chess experts as they select a
move in the middle stages of a match. What is common to these two tasks is that they both
involve retrieval of large amounts of knowledge, conceptual planning, and the development of solutions to the problems posed in each situation. In such activities, the
engagement of the individual in the task is critical and the cognitive effort allocated is
more substantial than when these operations are not needed, such as in reading, rote
learning or text copying (Olive & Kellogg, 2002). Although texts with complex sentences
demanded more effort than those with simple sentence structures, it is of interest that
reading syntactically complex texts, is still less demanding than writing.
Thus, it appears that the manipulation of information retrieved from long-term memory
and management of these processes in working memory (either in text composition or
when making a skilled move during a chess game) are highly demanding on the central
executive. In the remaining review, similar comparisons are made across different tasks. It
is recognized that these comparisons lead to inferences that must be tested in a single
experiment using statistical procedures. Even so, the comparisons suggest interesting
research questions that can be tested in future experiments.
Measuring cognitive effort with the triple task
The chronometric approach of mental functioning just discussed can be further extended
by analysing the cognitive effort associated with specific processes involved in note taking
300
A. Piolat et al.
or writing. This involves asking for an immediate directed introspection after each tones
detection. The participant categorizes his or her thoughts at the moment the tone occurred.
For example, in studying text composition, the participants indicated whether their
thoughts reflected planning ideas, translating ideas into text by generating sentences, or
reviewing ideas or text (Kellogg, 1987; Levy & Ransdell, 1995). With the triple task, then,
participants perform: (1) the primary task under investigation, (2) the secondary probe task
described above, and (3) a verbalization task that asks participants to label the process that
was interrupted by the probe. For this last task, participants have first been trained to
identify the cognitive processes activated at the moment based on immediate recollection
of their conscious thoughts at the time of the probe. In most of the writing studies, the three
major writing processes (i.e. planning, translating and reviewing) have been the focus of
the researcher and writers are thus trained to identify these processes. Obviously, different
processes can be the targets of the investigation.
The time course of the triple task is as follows: while writers compose their text, just
after having reacted as fast as possible to the auditory probes, they designate the process
interrupted by the probe, and then the task continues with several cycles of reaction to the
probes followed by directed introspection. Two variables are then analysed. First, the
verbalization data provide information about the processing time of the writing processes
and how this processing time changes throughout a writing session. The percentage of
times spent on a writing process constitutes an index of its processing time. Second, the
RTs to the probes allow one to study the allocation of cognitive resources to these
processes. Each RT to a probe is associated with an immediate, directed introspection
response and the latency of these RTs (in terms of a difference with a baseline RT)
estimates the cognitive effort given to the reported writing process. This method, then,
sheds light on how writers succeed or fail in managing the demands of writing by tracking
the time and effort devoted to specific processes.
The triple task uses directed introspection as opposed to the undirected introspection
obtained in think aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Verbal protocols provide a
much richer record of the cognitive processes engaged in by the writer. However, thinking
out loud as one writes is particularly challenging given the heavy demands of the primary
task on working memory. When generating sentences, the think aloud protocol requires
speaking a sentence at the same time that it is written and the protocol is often nothing
more than a verbalization of the written sentence. Undirected verbalization is quite
informative with respect to planning and reviewing, but the continuous verbalization
requirement is more intrusive than training writers to identify one of three or four
categories (Olive et al., 2002; Piolat & Olive, 2000). A brief, categorical response
minimizes the disruption of the primary task and at the same time allows one to estimate
processing time and cognitive effort. Further, it allows participants to report nonverbal
processes, such as visual imagery in planning, without the cost of recoding into words as
required in a think aloud protocol (Piolat, Olive, Roussey, Thunin, & Ziegler, 1999). The
use of directed introspection has proven extremely valuable in other research areas, such
as the categories of remember versus know in studies of episodic memory (Gardiner &
Richardson-Klavehn, 2000).
The triple task may appear complex and disruptive of the primary task. Several
experiments have been carried out to test the impact of the probe task and directed
introspection on the primary task (Kellogg, 1987; Pelissier & Piolat, 1999; Piolat, Kellogg,
& Farioli, 2001; Piolat, Roussey, Olive, & Farioli, 1996). The findings of these experiments show that the functioning and performance of the participants to the primary task
Note taking
301
are neither degraded nor altered. Moreover, processing time and cognitive effort of the
writing processes do not necessarily co-vary; for instance, although translating processes
are activated more often than planning and revising, the cognitive cost of translating is
usually smallest. The tripletask method is a powerful technique that highlights key
features of the strategies writers use when composing a text.
In sum, with such tools of mental chronometry and according to the goals of the study,
researchers can elect to focus on only the holistic cognitive effort engaged by a particular
task (e.g. by comparing note taking from a lecture or from a written document). For this
purpose, the dual-task technique with a secondary probe task suffices. The researcher
might, however, want to track the time course and cognitive effort of the cognitive
processes that underlie an activity. The triple-task technique offers a way to do so that is
un-intrusive and informative.
COGNITIVE EFFORT IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS OF NOTE TAKING

Several complex cognitive processes involved in language processing activities are
simultaneously activated when taking notes (comprehension, writing, and learning). To
assess their respective cost, in terms of cognitive effort, findings from various studies are
compared in this section. Results are not presented in the following sections in a canonical
way for the following reasons. Firstly, our goal is to offer a synopsis of the different studies
that have evaluated cognitive effort during note taking and the detailed statistics of each
study are not presented here. Secondly, putting all these studies together is meant only to
present an overview of a large sample of results in order to suggest hypotheses, as was
done in Kelloggs (1986) review of writing tools. Our main goal is to attempt to predict in
which way working memory is engaged depending on the writing activity (e.g. writing
versus note taking) and on the different contexts (e.g. note taking from a document versus
from a website).
Comparing note taking with comprehension, learning and writing
Taking notes implies comprehending either a written document or a lecture and recording
information by writing it down. So, we first compare noting from a lecture, reading a text
(to assess the cognitive effort of comprehension), and writing by longhand. Figure 4 shows
the results of four areas of enquiry in which cognitive effort was measured.
In a difficult intentional learning task, participants learned (psychology undergraduate
students) a list of nonsense syllables (Kellogg, 1986). In the reading study (Britton et al.,
1982), participants read a brief text. The note-taking situation asked participants
(psychology undergraduate students) to take notes from a 12-min lecture on literature
before filling a questionnaire (Piolat, in press; Roussey & Piolat, 2003). In the last study,
participants (psychology undergraduate students) composed an approximately one-page
long argumentative text (Piolat et al., 1996). As Figure 4 shows, the cognitive effort
engaged by note taking is greater than learning and comprehending (reading in Figure 4).
This indicates that taking notes demands more of the central executive than either learning
or comprehending alone, and supports the assumption that both of these activities are
engaged in note taking.
In another experiment that used the triple-task technique (Gerouit, Piolat, Roussey, &
Barbier, 2001), note takers had to categorize their activity after each reaction to a tone
302
A. Piolat et al.
according to whether they were reading a booklet or recording information by writing it

down. Despite the reading task being highly effortful, judging from the large IRT observed
(590 ms), the note-taking task (661 ms) was still reliably more demanding. As this finding
shows, the writing activity of note taking seems to be more costly than that of
comprehension. Thus, taking notes consumes at least as many resources as composing a
text. Noting and writing both involve comprehension processes because both writers and
note takers build a conceptual mental representation of what they are composingfor the
former, and of what they are hearingfor the latter. But they also activate other processes
to format their notes with the various physical and linguistic formatting procedures they
have at their disposal. Applying these procedures is more effortful than comprehending
(see reading in Figure 4). This finding is compatible with data from a comparison between
creative and non- creative activities (see next section, and text copying in Figure 4).
Comparing note taking with the processes involved in text composition

The analysis of the processes involved in note taking indicates that note taking is closer to
text composition than to graphic transcription (Piolat et al., 2003). This interpretation is
supported by data from the comparison between cognitive effort associated to note taking,
copying, and the three major cognitive processes (planning, translating and revising;
Piolat, in press; Roussey & Piolat, 2003) with data from an experiment that assessed
cognitive effort of the three major writing processes (Piolat et al., 1996) and with data
from an experiment in which the cognitive effort of copying was assessed (Olive & Piolat,
2002). In this last experiment, participants (psychology undergraduate students) had to
copy a text that they had just composed in one of the conditions.
As Figure 4 illustrates, note taking is not only transcribing (cf. copying). The cognitive
effort devoted to note taking is indeed reliably higher than the effort devoted to copying. In
other words, taking notes is not a simple graphic transcription of the information that is
carried out in the lecture or in the reading. Indeed, in addition to operations of
comprehension, when taking notes, note takers also select information, reformulate the
contents (abbreviations, telegraphic style, linguistic formatting of the notes), operations
which all require an effort that is greater than that required for a simple sequential
transcription. Finally, the low cognitive effort of copying (i.e. handwriting) also suggests
that gaining access to meaning, sorting and selecting information can be elicited
simultaneously with writing (more precisely, with translating and the associated motor
execution of handwriting).
The comparison between note taking and the three writing processes (planning,
translating and revising) first shows that planning the content of a text is the most effortful
process (Kellogg, 1994). Retrieving and organizing ideas during a text composition are
still more effortful than selecting the information that will be recorded. Searching a new
and creative solution (i.e. the text written down) requires more resources than taking
notes, even if the notes often present content characteristics different from what has been
heard or read.
Comparing note taking from different sources and with different techniques
Note taking is used in very different situations that impose different information
processing demands. Note takers frequently extract information from a written document
Note taking
303
Figure 5. Mean cognitive effort (in milliseconds, and standard errors) when taking notes from a
lecture or while reading and with two methods (usual versus pre-planned; Piolat, in press; Roussey &
Piolat, 2003)
(an article, a book) to learn its content, or in order to use this information later. By contrast
with note taking from a lecture, the pace at which note takers have to comprehend and
select information from a document is slower when they read. They can, therefore, activate
successively and not concurrently some of the operation needed to record the information
via handwriting. Techniques also vary substantially, with almost all note takers using a
personalized method for taking notes on a blank sheet. Some of them use pre-planned
methods that reduce the urgency in taking notes. The sheets are marked with a plan, such
as an outline, that guides the selection and recording of information from readings or
lectures.
Piolat (in press) has compared these different situations of note taking by psychology
undergraduate students (Roussey & Piolat, 2003). More precisely, she compared note
taking when listening to a lecture on literature with note taking while reading a transcript
of it, and she contrasted these two contexts with two methods: taking notes with ones own
usual method or with a pre-planned method (Figure 5).
Not surprisingly, taking notes from reading requires less cognitive effort than from a
lecture. When listening, more operations are concurrently engaged and, thus, taking notes
from a lecture places more demands on working memory resources. In Piolats experiment
(in press), the note-taking method did not affect the amount of working memory resources
note takers engaged in the task. One possible interpretation is that the different methods
that can be used for taking notes only affect the temporal management of the different
activities that underlie note taking rather than their cognitive effort. This finding needs to
be replicated, however.
Comparing note taking from different mediums with different
amounts of information
Both the amount of information and its support can affect the cognitive effort of note
takers. The written documents that constitute the source of the note-taking activity can be
of various lengths (from a few pages to a book). Information can, moreover, be presented
on paper (books) or on a computer screen or notepad (hypertexts). In Figure 6 the findings
from two studies are presented. In one study, students took notes from a two-page written
document of 1680 words. Psychology undergraduate students were instructed that they
304
A. Piolat et al.
Figure 6. Mean cognitive effort (in milliseconds) according to the size of the written source (two
pages versus 30 pages) and the medium (paper versus hypertext) [(1) Piolat, in press; Roussey &
Piolat, 2003; (2) Gerouit et al., 2001]. NB: the values of standard errors are not available
had to take notes because they had then to complete a questionnaire (Piolat, in press;
Roussey & Piolat, 2003). In the other experiment, psychology undergraduate students
explored a large document (around 30 pages) on pollution that results from shipwrecks and
on specificities of maritime transport. Their task was to write an argumentation defending
the sea transport of dangerous products. Information was presented either in a booklet or
through a hypertext document (namely, a website; for a discussion of the differences
between the two types of documents, see Gerouit et al., 2001).
As this comparison indicates (see Figure 6), taking notes from a short text is less
effortful than from a long document. In addition to activating text comprehension
processes, when taking notes from a large document, note takers also must generate a
large mental representation of the text (namely, a more complex mental model).
Furthermore, to perform the task well, they develop strategies for scanning the whole
text that are very different from the strategies developed for reading short texts. With short
text, the note takers generally adopt linear scanning strategies, while they do not for longer
texts.
Searching and sampling part of a text in order to find information to be recorded are
more effortful with a hypertext than with a paper document. Using computer technology to
manage information through the click of a mouse can actually increase cognitive effort,
judging from these results. It may be that the use of these technologies is less practised
than reading and handwriting. Similar results were obtained by Kellogg and Mueller
(1993), however, who found that writing by longhand was less effortful than using a word
processor even for skilled typists.
Note taking and linguistic skill
Note takers linguistic skill, and in particular their mastery of a language, is another factor
that might affect cognitive effort. Barbier and Piolat (M.-L. Barbier & A. Piolat, paper
presented at the Sig Writing Conference, Geneva, 2004) examined the notes produced by
undergraduate French students in their third year of English (as a foreign language). These
students were instructed to take notes from an 8-min lecture (an 840-word text was
recorded and then played) and they had then to summarize the text. They took notes first in
French (first language) from a lecture about enrollment in French universities and second
in English (second language) from a lecture about the general organization of studies in
French universities (test order was counterbalanced: half of the students passed L1 and
then L2, the other half L2 then L1).
Note taking
305
Figure 7. Mean cognitive effort (in milliseconds, and standard errors) by undergraduate students
when taking notes or when summarizing a lecture after having taken the notes in first language
(French) and second language (English) (Barbier & Piolat, in press)
Producing a text (in our case summarizing it, see Figure 7) requires more executive
attention than taking notes in both languages. This finding supports the results reported in
Figure 4. Not surprisingly, both note taking and text composition in a second language
demands much more effort than in a first language.
Level of skill in a specific activity (as for example linguistic skill or domain knowledge,
cf. Olive, Piolat, & Roussey, 1997) does not explain all the observed inter-individual
differences. For instance, Piolat (in press) and Roussey and Piolat (2003) have shown that
working memory capacityassessed with the French adaptation of a reading span test
(Desmette, Hupet, Schelstraete, & Van der Linden, 1995)favours the adoption of
different strategies of note taking and affects the cognitive effort that is engaged by note
takers.
CONCLUSION
We have argued that the time urgency of note taking imposes significant demands on the
limited resources of working memory. The problems encountered by the note taker can be
understood in terms of the major cognitive effort required in specific contexts or situations.
Note taking is a complex activity that involves interweaving both comprehension and
production processes. As with reading, writing and other complex activities, working
memory is a critical cognitive component and individual differences in performance can
be traced to how well the demands on working memory are managed. The findings
reviewed here show that the dual-task paradigm (and its variants) provides a relevant
window on the mental functioning of note takers. The effects of different situational
factors on the engagement of central executive of working memory can be fruitfully
studied.
It is important in future work to use the triple-task method to identify and investigate
more precisely all the information processing operations engaged in note taking.
Identifying when and how many times comprehension, selection and production processes
are activated, as well as how these processes are orchestrated constitutes an important
challenge to understanding the functional characteristics of note taking. Our objective here
was to delimit the basic process of note taking in a manner paralleling the written
composition of original texts to lay the foundation for decomposing the task and its mental
components further (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Kellogg, 1994).
306
A. Piolat et al.
It also remains for future research to relate cognitive effort (that most often results from
strategic adaptation) with behavioural outcomes, such as the quality of the notes taken or
the performance or the time required to complete the task. However, in contrast to texts
written for public consumption, notes are generally a private product intended to be
meaningful only to the note taker. It may be more difficult to adopt criteria of quality that
are agreed upon as valid for note taking in comparison to written texts.
However, because processing time (or frequency) of the processes involved in note
taking can also be assessed with the triple-task method, the effect of the different methods
(or formats) and strategies (for instance focusing essentially on comprehension on
recording of information) of note taking can be investigated. Moreover, inter-individual
characteristics of note takers, already visible in the notes, may be discovered. Perhaps
there are individual writing signatures for note taking similar to those observed already
in full texts compositions (Levy & Ransdell, 1995; van Waes & Schellen, 2003).
In text composition, writers have to find a balance between the quality of the text they
want to reach and the cognitive cost of the activity (Kellogg, 1994; Olive & Piolat, 2003).
In particular, this balance is sensitive to the level of expertise (domain knowledge,
linguistic skill). By analogy with text composition, evidence for such a trade-off between
procedures in note taking, namely the nature of the produced notes, and the requirements
in cognitive resources should appear a promising way for a better understanding of note
taking and of its learning outcomes.
The observations reviewed here indicate that, from a cognitive perspective, note taking
cannot be conceived of as only a simple abbreviated transcription of information that is
heard or read. Rather, on the contrary, it is an activity that strongly depends on the central
executive functions of working memory to manage comprehension, selection, and
production processes concurrently. Indeed, the severe time pressure of note taking requires
that information is both quickly comprehended and recorded in written form. It is a unique
kind of written activity that cumulates both the inherent difficulties of comprehending a
message and of producing a new written product. Yet, it differs in many of its
characteristics from the usual linear and conventionally presented written texts.
AUTHORS NOTE
Annie Piolat, Centre PsyCLE, University of Provence (France). Thierry Olive, Laboratory
Language and Cognition, CNRS and University of Poitiers (France). Ronald T. Kellogg,
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University (Missouri, USA).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Professor J. Hartley and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions to improve
the manuscript.
The article was supported by a grant from the French ACI programme Ecole et
Sciences Cognitives.
REFERENCES
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series
Ed.), Studies in writing (Vol. 9). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Note taking
307
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. 175199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 49A, 528.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417423.
Badger, R., White, G., Sutherland, P., & Haggis, T. (2001). Note perfect: an investigation of how
students view taking notes in lectures. System, 29(3), 405417.
Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students lecture notes and their relation to test performance.
Teaching of Psychology, 12, 2832.
Barbier, M.-L., & Piolat, A. (in press). L1 and L2 cognitive effort of note taking and writing. In
L. Allal, & B. Schneuwly (Eds.). Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Writing. Geneva,
Switzerland.
Barbier, M.-L., Faraco, M., Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Kida, T. (2003). Comparaison de la prise de
notes detudiants japonais et espagnols dans leur langue native et en francais L2 [Comparing note
taking between Japanese and Spanish students in L1 and L2]. Retrieved from May 20, 2004, from
Arob@se 7, 1-2 [http://www.arobase.to/v7/].
Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note-taking? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 73, 181192.
Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of strategic note taking on the recall and
comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(3), 133141.
Branca-Rosoff, S. (1998). Abreviations et icones dans les prises de notes des etudiants. [Abbreviations and icons in note taking by students] In M. Bilger, K. dan den Eynde, & F. Gadet (Eds.),
Analyse linguistique et approches de loral. Recueil detudes offert en hommage a` ClaireBlanche-Benveniste [Speech analysis. Festchrift to Claire Blanche-Benveniste] (pp. 286299).
Leuven-Paris: Peeters.
Bretzing, B. H., Kulhavy, R. W., & Caterino, L. C. (1987). Note taking by junior high students.
Journal of Educational Research, 80, 359362.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1982). Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity in three
complex cognitive tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 421436.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use
of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 5161.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 114.
Canelos, J., Dwyer, F., Nichols, B., & Randall, T. W. (1984). The note taking strategy of directed
overt activity for improving learning on three types of intellectual tasks. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 11(3), 139148.
Cary, M., & Carlson, R. A. (1999). External support and the development of problem-solving routines.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 10531070.
Cary, M., & Carlson, R. A. (2001). Distributing working memory resources during problem solving.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 836848.
Castello, M., & Monereo, C. (1999). Strategic knowledge in note-taking: a study in high education.
Infancia y Aprendizaje, 88, 2542.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture
note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7592).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clerehan, R. (1995). Taking it down: note taking practices of L1 and L2 students. English for specific
purposes, 14(2), 137157.
Cohn, E., Cohn, S., & Bradley, J. J. (1995). Note-taking, working memory, and learning in principles
of economics. Research in Economic Education, 26(4), 291307.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a metaanalysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422433.
Desmette, D., Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M. A., & Van der Linden, M. (1995). Adaptation en langue
francaise du reading span test de Daneman et Carpenter [French adaptation of Daneman &
Carpenter reading span test]. LAnnee Psychologique, 95, 459482.
308
A. Piolat et al.
Dunkel, P. A., & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture note taking: perceptions of American and
international students regarding the value and practice of note taking. English for Specific
Purposes, 8(1), 3350.
Dye, G. A. (2000). Graphic Organizers to the Rescue! Helping Students Linkand Remember
Information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 7276.
Dyer, J., Riley, J., & Yekovitch, F. (1979). An analysis of three study skills: note-taking,
summarizing and rereading. Journal of Educational Research, 73(1), 37.
Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for
lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 522532.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215251.
Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1974). Effects of note taking preference and types of notes taken on
memory. Psychological Reports, 35, 384385.
Foos, P. W., Mora, J. J., & Tkacz, S. (1994). Student study techniques and the generation effect.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 567576.
Foulin, J. N. (1995). Pauses et debits: les indicateurs temporels de la production ecrite
[Pauses and fluency: chronometrics indices of writing production]. LAnnee Psychologique, 95,
483504.
Frank, B. M. (1984). Effects of filed independence-dependence and study technique on learning from
a lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669678.
Gardner, J. M., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. Tulving, &
F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229244). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gerouit, C., Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Barbier, M. L. (2001). Cout attentionnel de la recherche
dinformations par des adultes sur hypertexte et sur document papier. In M. Mojahid, & J. Virbel
(Eds.), Actes du 4 Colloque International sur le Document Electronique (pp. 201215). Paris:
Europia production.
Gruneberg, M. M., & Mathieson, M. (1997). The perceived value of minds maps (spider diagrams)
as learning and memory aids. Cognitive Technology, 2(1), 2124.
Hadwin, A. F., Kirby, J. R., & Woodhouse, R. A. (1999). Individual differences in note-taking,
summarization and learning from lectures. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(1),
117.
Hartley, J. (1976). Lecture handouts and student note taking. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 13, 5864.
Hartley, J. (2002). Note taking in non academic settings: a review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16,
559574. DOI: 10.1002/acp.814
Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Notetaking: a critical review. Programmed Learning and
Educational Technology, 15, 207224.
Hayes, R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg,
& E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Christensen, C. C. (1991). Note taking from textbooks: effects of a
columnar format on three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality, 2, 1940.
Houdek Middendorf, C., & Hoff Macan, T. (2002). Note taking in the employment interview: effects
on recall and judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 293303.
Howe, M. J. A. (1974). The utility of taking notes as an aid to learning. Educational Research, 16,
222227.
Isaacs, G. (1994). Lecturing practices and note taking purposes. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2),
203216.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kellogg, R. T. (1986). Designing idea processors for document composition. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 118128.
Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive
effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15, 256266.
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: effects of rough draft and
outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14(2),
355365.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Note taking
309
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M. C. Levy, & S. E. Ransdell

(Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57
71). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Kellogg, R. T., & Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplification and process restructuring in
computer-based writing. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 3349.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Investigating note taking and review: a depth of processing alternative.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 2332.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Learning from a lecture: an investigation of note taking, review and
attendance at a lecture. Human Learning, 4, 7377.
Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Note taking and review: the research and its implications. Journal of
Instructional Science, 16, 233249.
Kiewra, K. A. (1988a). Cognitive aspects of autonomous note taking: control processes, learning
strategies, and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 23, 3956.
Kiewra, K. A. (1988b). Comparing of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as
strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303323.
Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: the encoding storage paradigm and beyond.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147172.
Kiewra, K. A. (1991). Aids to lecture learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 3753.
Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and
note-taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 3344.
Kiewra, K. A., & Frank, B. M. (1988). Encoding and external storage effects of personal lecture
notes, skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Levis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of note taking and their
relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14(3), 110117.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: a
comparison of the three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 595
597.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christensen, M., Kim, S., & Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable
account of the note taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Science,
18(3), 217232.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991).
Note taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240245.
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, 172187.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note-taking-review as strategies
for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303323.
Knigth, L. J., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance, note taking and review on memory for
lecture: encoding versus external storage function of notes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 18, 5261.
Ladas, H. (1980). Note taking on lectures: an information-processing approach. Educational
Psychology, 15(1), 4453.
Laidlaw, E. N., Skok, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). The effects of note taking and selfquestioning on quiz performance. Science Education, 77(1), 7582.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory & Cognition, 23(6),
767779.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. E. (2002). Writing with concurrent memory loads. In G. Rijlaarsdam
(Series Ed.), Studies in Writing & T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Studies in Writing:
Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 929). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lindberg-Risch, N., & Kiewra, K. A. (1990). Content and form variations in note taking: effects
among junior high students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(6), 355357.
Morgan, C. H., Lilley, J. D., & Boreham, N. C. (1988). Learning from lectures: the effect of
varying the detail in lecture handouts on note taking and recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2,
115122.
310
A. Piolat et al.
Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual
information. Reading Research and Instruction, 27, 1225.
Norton, L. S. (1981). The effects of note taking and subsequent use on long term recall. Programmed
Learning and Educational Technology, 18(1), 1622.
Norton, L. S., & Hartley, J. (1986). What factors contribute to good examination marks: the role of
note taking in subsequent examination performance. Higher Education, 15, 355371.
Nye, P. A., Crooks, T. J., Powley, M., & Tripp, G. (1984). Student note taking related to university
examination performance. Higher Education, 13, 8597.
Oakhill, J., & Davies, A. M. (1991). The effects of test expectancy on quality of note taking and
recall of text at different times of day. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 179189.
Olive, T. (2004). Working memory in writing: empirical evidence from the dual-task-technique.
European Psychologist, 9(1), 3242.
Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level writing processes.
Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 594600.
Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2002). Suppressing Visual Feedback in written composition: effects on
Processing Demands and Coordination of the Writing. International Journal of Psychology, 37(4),
209218.
Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2003). Activation des processus redactionnels et qualite des textes [Writing
processes and texts quality]. Le Langage et LHomme, 38(2), 191206.
Olive, T., Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.-Y. (1997). Effort cognitif et mobilisation des processus: Effet de
lhabilete redactionnelle et du niveau de connaissances [Cognitive effort and time processing of
the writing processes: effect of writing skills and level of knowledge]. In D. Mellier, & A. Vom
Hofe (Eds.), Attention et controle cognitif: Mecanismes, developpement des habiletes et
pathologies [Attention and control: mechanisms, development and pathologies] (pp. 7185).
Rouen: P.U.R.
Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the processus of
writing: why and How? In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing & T. Olive, & C. M.
Levy (Vol. Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 3159). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peck, K., & Hannafin, M. (1983). The effects of note taking pretraining and the recording notes on
the retention of aural instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 75(2), 100107.
Pelissier, A., & Piolat, A. (1999). Are writing processes activated sequentially or in parallel? The
way to approprietly use Kelloggs three task method. In E. Esperet, & L. Tolchinsky (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 1998 European Writing Conference: writing and Learning to Write at the dawn
of the 21st Century (pp. 7176). Poitiers: MSHS.
Peters, D. L. (1972). Effect of the note taking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 276280.
Piolat, A. (1998). Evaluation and Assessment of Written Texts. The encyclopedia of language and
education, language testing and assessment (Vol. 7, pp. 189198). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Piolat, A. (1999). Planning and text quality among undergraduate students: findings and questions. In
M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text
production (pp. 121136). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Piolat, A. (2001). La prise de notes [Note Taking]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Piolat, A. (in press). Effects of note taking technique and working-memory span on cognitive effort.
In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing, & D. Galbraith, M. Torrance, & L. van Waes
(Vol. Eds.), Recent developments in writing process research (Vol. 1: Basic processes and wordlevel effects). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Piolat, A., & Boch, F. (2004). Apprendre en notant et apprendre a` noter. In E. Gentaz, & P. Dessus
[Learning by taking notes and learning to take notes] (Eds.), Comprendre les apprentissages.
Psychologie cognitive et education [Understanding learning. Cognitive psychology and education] (pp. 133152) Paris: Dunod.
Piolat, A., & Olive, T. (2000). Comment etudier le cout et le deroulement de la redaction de textes?
La methode de la triple tache: Un bilan methodologique [How to study the cost and the unfolding
of writing? Theoretical constraints and research methods]. LAnnee Psychologique, 100, 465502.
Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.-Y. (1996). Students drafting strategies and text quality. Learning and
Instruction, 61, 111129.
Note taking
311
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., Olive, T., & Farioli, F. (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des
processus redactionnels: examen de la procedure de Kellogg [Mental load and time processing of
writing: test of Kelloggs procedure]. Psychologie francaise, 41-4, 339354.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O., & Ziegler, J. C. (1999). Scriptkell: a tool for
measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 31, 113121.
Piolat, A., Kellogg, R. T., & Farioli, F. (2001). The triple task technique for studying writing
processes: on which task is attention focused ? Current Psychology Letters. Brain, Behavior and
Cognition, 4, 6783.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Barbier, M. L. (2003). Mesure de leffort cognitif: Pourquoi estil
opportun de comparer la prise de notes a` la redaction, lapprentissage et la lecture de divers
documents? [Measuring cognitive effort: why is it relevant to compare note taking, writing,
learning and reading] Arob@se, 1-2, 118140 [http://www.arobase.to]. [20 May 2004].
Rickards, J. P., Fajen, B. R., Sullivan, J. F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, Note-taking, and field
independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 508517.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: graphic organizers are superior to
outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455467.
Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., DuBois, N. F., & DeVaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of
graphic organizers and delayed review in concept acquisition. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 67, 1731.
Roussey, J.-Y., & Piolat, A. (2003). Prendre des notes et apprendre. Effet du mode dacce`s a`
linformation et de la methode de prise de notes [Taking notes and learning. Effects of the access
mode to information and to the note taking procedure]. Arob@se 7, 1-2. [ http://www.arobase.to/
somm.html]. [20 May 2004].
Russell, I. J., Caris, T. N., Harris, G. D., & Hendricson, W. D. (1983). Effects of three types of
lectures notes on medical student achievement. Journal of Medical Education, 58, 627636.
Sanchez, R. P., Lorch, E. P., & Lorch, R. F. (2001). Effects of headings on text processing strategies.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 418428.
Scerbo, M. W., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Grasha, A. F. (1992). The role of time and cueing in a
college lecture. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 312328.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note taking on text
comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 120.
Slotte, V., Lonka, K. (2000). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific
concepts. International Journal of Sciences and Education, 21, 515531.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (2001). Note taking and essay writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), &
P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (volume Eds.), Studies in writing, writing as a learning tool:
Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 7, pp. 131141). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, P., & Tompkins, G. E. (1988). Structured note taking: a new strategy for content area readers.
Journal of Reading, 32, 4653.
Spires, H. A. (1993). Learning from a lecture: effects of comprehension monitoring. Reading
Research & Instruction, 32(2), 1930.
Stahl, N. A., King, J. R., & Henk, W. A. (1991). Enhancing students note taking through training
and evaluation. Journal of Reading, 34(8), 614622.
Suritsky, S. K. (1992). Note taking approaches and specific aeras of difficulty reported by university
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10(1), 3
10.
Thomas, G. S. (1978). Use of students notes and lecture summaries as studies guides for recall.
Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and
students note taking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 283297.
Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note taking
as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 447461.
Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning & Memory, 5, 607617.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic
Press.
312
A. Piolat et al.
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students theory of note taking derived from
their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323338.
van Waes, L., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing
and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 829853.
Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. (2002). Note taking predictors of test performance. Teaching of
Psychology, 29(3), 234237.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and learner expertise: split attention and
redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23,
121.
Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 30(1), Spring/ Summer 2012
The Impact of the Cornell Note-Taking Method on Students Performance in

a High School Family and Consumer Sciences Class
Lori Quintus
Century High School
Mari Borr
Stacy Duffield
Larry Napoleon
Anita Welch
North Dakota State University
Note-taking is a difficult skill, but it is an important skill, especially
considering the pervasiveness of lecture throughout middle-school, high school
and college classes. This study set out to examine whether teaching high school
students the Cornell note-taking method and requiring them to use it would affect
their performance on unit tests. The research question guiding the study was
How does the use of the Cornell note-taking method impact student performance
in a high school Family and Consumer Sciences class? At the conclusion of the
research, the data supports the null hypothesis there is no difference in studentchoice note-taking and Cornell note-taking on student performance in a high
school Family and Consumer Sciences class.
Lecture format is a common practice in high school classrooms for presentation of
content material, and this is true in the Child Development classes at Northern High School (a
pseudonym). As part of Family and Consumer Sciences, Child Development does have handson projects and units, but when covering the ages and stages of development (in particular from
birth through the preschool years), lectures with PowerPoint visuals are an efficient way to
communicate the subject matter. There are benefits to the lecture format with note-taking. While
writing, students use three senses to process the material: sight, sound, and touch. Notes also
give the students study materials for assessment preparation at a later time. However, there are
several difficulties with this method: some students write quite slowly, and the instructor and
other students must wait while those students write down the information; some students become
so focused on writing what is projected on the screen that they cannot listen to the instructor; and
some students may have trouble creating notes that are useful at a later time.
During the spring semester of 2011, two sections of Child Development class (taught by
the same instructor) at Northern High School were used as the setting for an action research
project with the aim of discovering the effectiveness of the Cornell note-taking method through
comparison of the infant, toddler and preschool unit tests taken by both sections. The research
question guiding the study was How does the use of the Cornell note-taking method impact
student performance in a high school Family and Consumer Sciences class?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this article lies in the information processing perspective
and schema theory. Theorists describe information processing as being comprised of three
stages (Lieberman, 2000). First, information is received by the sensory memory, and through the
27
process of transduction converted to a usable format, resulting in a memory (Huitt, 2003). A

sensory memory is very brief and, unless it is interesting to the individual or triggers a known
pattern, it will not make it to the next stage, the short term memory.
During the second stage, the sensory memory may be transferred to the short term
memory, also known as the working memory (Orey, 2001). Working memory, is a kind of
mental workbench where we assemble information and then work on this information for
particular purposes (Lieberman, 2000, p. 371). The working memory can only hold a limited
number of items, 5-9, and typically only holds these items for about 20 seconds, but items can be
held for up to 20 minutes through repeated use called rehearsal (Huitt, 2003). Then, if there is no
interference, the memory may move into long term memory, the last of the three stages of
information processing.
Long-term memory is everything we know and know how to do (Orey, 2001, para. 7).
This information is combined with new information, organized in a way that makes sense, and
then stored until it is needed (Eggen & Kauchak, 2013). Schema theory provides a framework
for understanding how information is organized and stored (Ormrod, 2012). Schemata are
interconnected categories within the memory (McKenna & Robinson, 2009, p. 17). As an
individual takes in information, schemata are activated and this prior knowledge is used to make
meaning. In order for new learning to be retained and retrievable for later use, the material must
be stored in meaningful ways. Schemata influence how individuals process information and
what they learn (Eggen & Kauchak, 2013). Because teachers have such a strong influence on
how schemata are formed and the information with which students are presented, it is important
to make thoughtful decisions not only about how information is presented to students, but also
the ways in which they are asked to interact with the information (Huitt, 2003).
Review of Literature
Traditional education is often based on effective listening and note-taking, and students
of all ages and in all content areas are expected to be responsible for the knowledge shared
through lectures (Boyle, 2010; Faber, Morris & Lieberman, 2000). Teachers place importance
on the skills of note-taking and listening, and believe that students should have these skills to be
successful in class (Boyle, 2010). A large proportion of middle- and high-school teachers use
lecture to present important information, and content area teachers, in particular, often use the
lecture format (Boyle, 2010; Peverly et al., 2007). General education teachers recognize that
students must take notes and learn from lectures to do well in their classes, as lecture and notetaking are considered to be common ways of communicating material (Boyle, 2010; Titsworth,
2001). Teachers often require note-taking, and information relating to content and skills are
frequently presented through lecture (Frey, 2006; Konrad, Joseph, & Eveleigh, 2009).
Purposes of Note-Taking
One goal of education is retention of knowledge for life-long learning and for assessment,
and note-taking can help students as they reach this goal. Notes provide students with tools for
identifying and understanding the most important aspects of what they are learning (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001, p. 48). Memory is fragile, and information can be forgotten very
quickly if it is not transferred to long-term memory (Pauk, 2001). The information from a
lecture must be remembered or recorded, or it is forgotten (Kiewra, 1991). This is where notetaking can help. Students who take notes typically retain more information than those who do
not, which has a positive effect on learning (Titsworth, 2001). The actual process of note-taking
28
has value in promoting recall, with noted items recalled at a higher rate than non-noted items
(Kiewra, 1985). Note-taking in classes has been shown to increase academic achievement
(Boyle, 2007; Boyle, 2010; Kiewra, 1985; Kiewra & Benton, 1988). Notes can serve as a
summary of the material gained through listening and observing during the lecture, and notetaking can also facilitate comprehension through internal connections made during the lecture
(Faber et al., 2000; Kiewra et al., 1991; Piolat, Olive & Kellogg, 2004).
Taking notes can enhance learning due to the generative effect students retain
knowledge better when they generate materials themselves rather than having materials given to
them (Piolat et al., 2004). Even though the information is given to students through lecture and
visual aids, the act of writing notes creates a further learning opportunity. Notes that have the
main concepts stated along with details are related to student recall and transfer of knowledge
and to improved performance (Baker & Lombardi, 1985; Kiewra, 1985; Kiewra & Benton,
1988). Effective notes help students make connections to information that they already know
(Faber et al., 2000). Note-taking supports information processing and serves as a means of
external storage for later review (Kiewra, 1991; Piolat et al., 2004; Titsworth, 2001).
Since memory can be short-lived, and there is a span of time between hearing the
information during a lecture and being assessed on that information, the external storage function
of note-taking is crucial. Students who take the time to review their notes typically have higher
achievement than those who do not (Kiewra, 1985; Kiewra, Benton, Kim, & Risch, 1995;
Kiewra et al., 1991). Notes can serve as a permanent record of the information from the lecture,
and complete notes are best for students to use in review (Boyle, 2010). The product of notetaking or the review materials is important, and so is the process of actually recording the notes
(Kiewra et al., 1995; Piolat et al., 2004). The cognitive effort happening during the note-taking
process adds to the learning effect.
Students who effectively record notes typically process the lecture information at a
deeper level (Kiewra et al., 1995; Titsworth, 2001). This process of encoding, or making
connections between the new material and past knowledge, facilitates comprehension (Cohn,
Cohn, & Bradley, 1995; Faber et al., 2000; Kiewra, 1991). When the new material is
incorporated with prior knowledge, the encoding process is successful (Faber et al., 2000;
Kiewra et al., 1991; Piolat et al., 2004). Encoding leads to deeper meaning, better
understanding, and better results on assessment (Baker & Lombardi, 1985; Kiewra, 1985).
Successful note-takers end up with an effective set of notes that make connections to what they
already know (Faber et al., 2000). The actual process of generating the notes is a learning aid,
and students who add details to their notes during this process find the content more meaningful
(Boyle, 2007; Boyle, 2010). When students are better able to identify the main points of the
lecture, the encoding effect becomes as important as the external storage function (Faber et al.,
2000). When comparing a group of students who wrote their own notes and used them for
review (encoding and storage group) to a group who studied notes that were given to them
(storage only group), the first group recalled more and performed better on assessments (Kiewra
et al., 1991). In order to take advantage of the process of encoding notes, students need to have
good working memory.
Difficulties of Note-Taking
Note-taking is a complex activity that combines comprehension with production of notes,
and this complicated process is dependent upon working memory (Piolat et al., 2004). As
students listen to a lecture, the important information should be held in working memory long
29
enough to access it as they write it down (Cohn et al., 1995). Note-taking is dependent on
working memory to acquire, mentally represent, select and understand (Makany, Kemp, &
Dror, 2009, p. 620) the incoming information while making connections with previous
knowledge. This intricate process may be difficult for students, which may be one reason
students often are not successful at note-taking.
Other difficulties include balancing the effort of writing and listening at the same time,
deciding which items are important to note, and writing fast enough (Boyle, 2010). It is difficult
to listen, write and select important information all at once (Konrad et al., 2009). Students often
assume that anything shown on the blackboard or screen is important and write everything
(Baker & Lombardi, 1985). Other students will record verbatim everything that is said, which is
ineffective and possibly detrimental to learning, as their focus on catching every word takes
away from their focus on the information given in the lecture (Boyle, 2007; Kiewra & Benton,
1988). Just copying what is seen or heard does not lead to comprehension (Piolat et al., 2004).
Unfortunately, few students are good at the skill of decoding what is important, and most just
duplicate what is shown or said (Baker & Lombardi, 1985). The key to effective notes is to
record the important material in an ordered manner, as comprehensively as possible (Boyle,
2007).
To better comprehend the material, students should have good notes with main points and
added detail. Because of the difficulty of integrating information while taking notes, students
sometimes limit their note-taking to improve comprehension, or limit their processing to improve
transcription (Kiewra, 1985; Piolat et al., 2004). Neither solution leads to success; using either
alone limits the encoding effect and the effect of external storage. Additionally, lectures often
move at a fast pace, with many facts and vocabulary words (Boyle, 2010). The rate of speech is
approximately two to three words per second, and the average handwriting speed is .2 to .3
words per second, which can lead to a problem in balancing the speed of writing against the
speed of the lecture (Makany et al., 2009; Piolat et al., 2004).
Though most students do not receive any kind of instruction in note-taking, a good
system or format of notes can make a big difference in dealing with these difficulties and can
increase learning and achievement.
Organized Note-Taking: The Cornell Note-Taking Method
Most students are not taught how to take notes, or are taught these skills at a relatively
late point in the course of their education (Boyle, 2007; Faber et al., 2000). When students are
shown a structure for note-taking, it often improves the quality of their notes (Gray & Madson,
2007). Students in science courses implementing the Cornell Note-taking method had a 10-12%
higher average than students in the previous semester not using this method (Donohoo, 2010).
When Western (a pseudonym) High School struggled with meeting AYP, they determined a
course of action for improvements, including a plan to teach all students the Cornell note-taking
system based on research showing that this system can increase comprehension and achievement
(Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2009). Faber et al. (2000) showed that students who were taught the
Cornell method had significantly better scores than the students who were not taught this
method. AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) is a national program created to
increase the number of students enrolling in four-year colleges, especially those from the
academic middle, which are the second and third quartiles, who are neither academically
advanced nor in special education (Gray & Herr, 2006). The AVID program, which is currently
30
in 4,800 schools in 48 states, includes the Cornell note-taking method as part of their successful
curriculum (AVID, 2012).
The Cornell note-taking method is a two column system; the left column is one third of
the page, and the right column is two thirds of the page (Faber et al., 2000). The right column is
used to capture the lecturers ideas and facts (Pauk, 2001, p. 238), with students taking notes
during the lecture in this column. The left column (the cue column) is filled in later with
questions matching the main points (Pauk, 2001). After the note-taking session, students review
their notes and write questions in the cue column to highlight main points, meanings, and
relationships. The process of writing the questions in the cue column helps clarify meanings,
reveal relationships, establish continuity, and strengthen memory (Pauk, 2001, p. 237). This
column is also used in the review process when notes are studied (Pauk, 2001). At the bottom of
the page, a two inch-space is left for summarizing the main point(s) of the page, which again
clarifies meanings and also makes review easier (Pauk, 2001). When the note column, cue
column and summary area are used for note-taking and for review, students have an organized
system that can improve comprehension and achievement.
Summary
Note-taking is a difficult but important skill, especially considering the pervasiveness of
lecture throughout middle-school, high school and college. Much of the material that is
presented in classes is given through lecture, and students are responsible for learning in this
style. Students need to be able to listen and look while writing the main ideas and details from
the lecture, all the while matching the new information to previous knowledge for
comprehension. The synthesis of new material with old, or the encoding aspect of note-taking, is
as valuable as the storage function, which is having the material available for later review. High
quality notes contribute to better comprehension and better review, which can lead to higher
achievement and better retention of knowledge. If students are taught an organized system like
the Cornell note-taking method, many of the difficulties of lecture learning and note-taking
might be overcome.
Methodology
Overview
Research took place in one researchers Child Development classes at Northern High
School (a pseudonym) during the spring semester of 2011, with one section of 23 students and
one section of 17 students. Each of the two sections met daily for 50 minutes. Section A had 19
females and four males, and the students included 13 sophomores, nine juniors, and one senior.
Section B had 12 females and five males, with 12 sophomores, five juniors and no seniors. This
is a typical enrollment in Child Development, as the Family and Consumer Sciences classes tend
to have fewer males, and the Child Development classes tend to have a higher rate of
sophomores.
Northern High School enrolls approximately 1,000 students each year, and has little
ethnic or cultural diversity, with a high majority of students who are Caucasian and who speak
English as a first language. The 2007-2008 data for free and reduced lunch show that out of total
enrollment of 1,045, 62 students were part of the free lunch program and 51 were in the
reduced-price lunch program. This is equal to 10.8% of the Northern High School population.
The overall trends at Northern High School for ethnic and cultural background and socioeconomic status follow through in the Child Development population.
31
The Child Development curriculum is based on the textbook, Child Development: Early
Stages Through Age 12 (Decker, 2011) by Goodheart-Willcox. Many of the units covered in
Child Development have hands-on projects and learning opportunities, but the infancy, toddlers,
and preschoolers units also have a lecture component, with information presented through
PowerPoint slides and instructor lectures. The goal of this action research was to discover a
more effective approach for classroom note-taking.
Data Collection
The researcher read a recruitment script to each section of Child Development,
explaining the research process to students. It was emphasized that all students would be
involved in the regular classroom procedures (including lectures, note-taking, and unit tests)
whether or not they volunteered to participate in the study, but only the test data from those who
agreed to participate would be analyzed in the study. Their inclusion in the research data was
strictly on a voluntary basis. At this time, a letter to parents explaining the research project and
explaining implied consent was mailed home and students were given an assent form. No
parents chose to opt out their child, but in Section A, seven students decided not to participate,
and in Section B, one student missed much of the class due to other circumstances, so was not
included in the research. The final population for the study was 16 students in each section. The
Section A study sample had 14 females and two males, and the students included 11
sophomores, four juniors, and one senior. The Section B study sample had 12 females and four
males, with 12 sophomores, four juniors and no seniors.
Section A of Child Development was randomly chosen through a coin flip to take notes
in a student-choice manner. Section B was taught to use the Cornell note-taking method.
Student scores from a previously administered standardized test (ACT PLAN) were used
to compare the academic level of the two sections of Child Development prior to intervention.
The school district administers the ACT PLAN to all sophomores, so the scores for students
involved in the research were available, except for one student in Section A, who was not at
Northern High School in the fall semester. The ACT PLAN scores were used as a comparison
between the Section A non-intervention group and the Section B intervention group to check that
abilities and performances were similar between the two groups. The PLAN test includes
multiple-choice tests in English, Math, Reading, and Science, and is a nationally-normed test that
assesses academic progress in high school.
A PowerPoint explaining the Cornell note-taking method was used as an introduction to
this system in section B of the class, along with examples of notes taken using the Cornell
method from several different classes. Instruction in the Cornell note-taking method followed
and students learned to create organized notes by dividing their paper into three sections. See
Figure 1 for the example of Cornell notes used during this instruction. During initial instruction
in this method there was an instructor demonstration, examples were made available, and there
were opportunities for students to practice with feedback from the instructor.
Research began with the infancy unit, followed by the toddlers and preschoolers units.
Students in both sections were required to take notes, with Section B using the Cornell notetaking method and Section A using student-choice. The students in both sections received two
points for each day of notes, with the instructor visually checking notes each day for use of
assigned method. Points were given for completion of notes, with total points for notes equaling
4% of the total semester grade. Students in both classes were cooperative in taking notes, and
100% of the students earned all of the points possible for taking notes. Students took unit tests
32
Figure 1.
Example of notes on child development used in instruction of Cornell method of taking notes.
after each unit was completed. The unit tests were built using the Goodheart-Willcox curriculum
for Child Development: Early Stages Through Age 12 (Decker, 2011), and were based on lecture
content throughout the unit. Test bank questions were chosen based on the four chapters in each
unit to make an assessment consisting of true/false, matching, multiple choice, and essay
questions. The length of the tests ranged from 67 questions and 75 points to 74 questions and 80
points.
Results
The scores from the previously-administered PLAN test were analyzed to compare the
academic levels of the two sections of Child Development. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the scores for Section A (M = 18.4, SD = 2.185) and Section B (M =
18.19, SD = 2.404); t(29) = .25, p = .80. As p > .05, the results showed no significant difference
in the PLAN scores for the two sections which indicate that both sections were at a similar
33
academic level prior to the research beginning. Additionally, the average PLAN test scores for
both classes were slightly below the average PLAN scores for all students in their grade levels at
this school. The school-wide grade average PLAN test scores for those who were sophomores
during this study was 19.2, and the school-wide grade average PLAN test score for those who
were juniors during this study was 18.7.
Three unit tests were administered during the course of the action research consisting of
true/false, matching, multiple choice, and essay questions. The first was the unit three test,
which was administered after approximately three weeks of note-taking, with students in Section
B using the Cornell note-taking method and students in Section A using any method they chose.
The test included 67 questions and 79 points. An independent-samples t test was conducted to
compare the scores between the two class sections. The results indicated that the mean for
Section A non-intervention group (M = 76.81%, SD = 8.99) was not significantly different than
the mean for Section B intervention group (M = 75.31%, SD = 9.08), t(30) = .47, p = .64.
Therefore, for the unit three test, there was no significant difference in scores (see Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Comparison of unit test scores, using percentages. This figure illustrates the average test scores
for units three, four, and five in Section A (non-intervention) and Section B (intervention).
Unit tests
95
Percentage Scores
90
85
80
75
70
65
Unit 3 test
Unit 4 test
Unit 5 test
Section A
76.81
89.25
83.44
Section B
75.31
87.81
83.06
The unit four test, administered after approximately 5 total weeks of note-taking,
included 61 questions and 75 points. The results indicated that the mean for Section A nonintervention group (M = 89.25%, SD = 6.03) was not significantly different than the mean for
Section B intervention group (M = 87.81%, SD = 5.78), t(30) = .69, p = .50. Therefore, for the
unit four test, there was no significant difference in scores. (see Figure 2).
The last test, unit five, was administered after approximately seven total weeks of notetaking. This 80 point test, which had 74 questions, was the final test in the action research
process. The results indicated that the mean for Section A non-intervention group (M = 83.44%,
SD = 8.31) was not significantly different than the mean for Section B intervention group (83.06,
34
SD = 5.40), t(30) = .15, p = .88. Therefore, for the unit five test, there was no significant
difference in scores (see Figure 2). The standard deviations were similar on all three tests to the
standard deviations on tests on the same units from previous semesters.
Conclusions
This action research was formulated around the question How does the use of the
Cornell note-taking method impact student performance in a high school Family and Consumer
Sciences class? At the conclusion of the research, the data supports the null hypothesis there
is no difference in student-choice note-taking and Cornell note-taking on student performance in
a high school Family and Consumer Sciences class. The ACT PLAN scores show that both
sections of Child Development were at a similar level in academics prior to the beginning of the
research process. The comparison of scores between Section A (the non-intervention group) and
Section B (the intervention group) for the three unit tests given during the research process
shows no significant differences in scores for either group. Section A performed consistently
(but not significantly) higher on the tests than Section B. Although there was no significant
difference, examination of the scores shows that Section B (the intervention group) appears to
have been slowly closing the gap between their scores and Section As scores.
Reflection upon the research study and the populations involved indicates that there may
be several factors that had some bearing on the results, and thus, are acknowledged as possible
limitations within this study, including: (a) Child Development is an elective class with mostly
sophomores enrolled, (b) both sections were required to take notes, (c) there was no way to
determine if notes were actually used for studying, (d) learning styles among students vary, and
(e) there was some resistance to note-taking in both sections and to the Cornell method in
Section B. Each of these will be explored more below.
Family and Consumer Sciences classes are electives, and some students seem
predisposed to consider these classes as less important than and worth less of their time than
required classes. Child Development students have shown this attitude in the past in this
particular school, and depending on the student, this attitude can affect the amount of
concentration and work that the student is willing to put into the class. In addition, Child
Development has a high number of sophomores, which may also affect the effort given in the
class. Northern High School includes grades 10 through 12, so sophomores are at a transitioning
stage, and are adjusting to high school work. The combination of the elective class and the high
number of sophomores may have led to less focus and less studying, which could have affected
the results.
For the purpose of this study, both sections of Child Development were required to take
notes, and the teacher checked the notes of each student daily. The non-intervention group in
Section A took notes in whatever method they chose, but true student choice is often to take no
notes at all. Not taking notes would potentially result in less processing of the information along
with not having notes to study from. Because every student was taking notes in some form, and
they did not have the option of not taking notes, this may have affected the test scores for both
populations.
One of the objectives of the Cornell note-taking method is to provide organized notes for
studying. Although all students in both sections of the class did take notes, there was no way to
know if students were actually using the notes for study purposes. The assumption would be that
some students in both sections did study, but that others did not. If students were not using the
Cornell notes for studying, this could have affected the results.
35
Students do have different learning styles, and while note-taking is expected in class, it
may be that many of the students would have preferred to learn in a different way. For example,
students who were auditory learners may have been distracted by the visual requirement of notetaking. Those who were kinesthetic learners may not have gained much from either the audio or
the visual portions of note-taking.
As stated earlier, note-taking is not easy, and it is certainly not an educational skill that is
favored by many students. Throughout the length of the research study, there was resistance
toward the idea of note-taking by both sections. Although students were cooperative and did
take notes as required, some students protested this requirement to take notes and showed a
negative attitude toward notes overall. Also, within the intervention group there were students
who showed resistance to the Cornell note-taking method itself, with negative comments
regarding the work, the format, and the overall strategy of the Cornell method. Some students
had positive reactions to the method, but the more vocal students complained. This vocalized
negative attitude could have affected the use of the Cornell notes, which could have affected the
results.
One recommendation for future study would be to include a third section of the class. In
this section, the students would not be required to take notes. This true student-choice method
could then be compared with the other two methods. It may also be interesting to look at a class
that has a more equal male/female population, as females tend to have higher literacy skills
(Watson, Kehler, & Martino, 2010). Based on the comments of some students who appreciated
learning a new way of taking notes that was helpful to them, it may also be beneficial to teach
students a variety of note-taking methods, including image-based notes, and have each student
choose which note-taking method works best for him or her. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
(2001) state that each student may learn best from a different note-taking format and teachers
should provide instruction on how to take notes in a variety of ways.
Note-taking continues to be an important part of many high school classes, and will
remain part of the Child Development curriculum. Through the course of the action research,
there were some students who commented positively on the instruction in note-taking, and some
in the intervention section who commented that they found the Cornell note-taking method
useful and helpful. In the future, it may be worth addressing the possible issues of attitude
towards the class and attitude towards note-taking, and to look at use of the notes for studying,
perhaps with time allowed in class for studying to take place. It might also be constructive to
further investigate note-taking in general, and to research other formats of note-taking.
References
AVID. (2012).What is AVID? Brochure. Retrieved from
http://www.avid.org/dl/about/brochure_whatisavid.pdf
Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students lecture notes and their relation to test
performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28-32. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top1201_9
Boyle, J. R. (2007). The process of note taking: Implications for students with mild disabilities.
The Clearing House, 80(5), 227-232.
Boyle, J. R. (2010). Strategic note-taking for middle-school students with learning disabilities in
science classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 93-109. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.ndsu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=111&sid=bc2d
7aed-6237-4c56-8dec-c8cf27dbfdd6%40sessionmgr112
36
Cohn, E., Cohn, S., & Bradley, J., Jr. (1995). Notetaking, working memory, and learning in
principles of economics. Journal of Economics Education, 26, 291-307. doi:
10.2307/1182993
Decker, C.A. (2011). Child development: Early stages through age 12 (12th ed.). Tinley Park,
Illinois: Goodheart-Willcox
Donohoo, J. (2010). Learning how to learn: Cornell notes as an example. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 54, 224-227. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.3.9
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2013). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Faber, J. E., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). The effect of note taking on ninth grade
students comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21, 257-270. doi:
10.1080/02702710050144377
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2009). Meeting AYP in a high-need school: A formative
experiment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 396-396. doi:
10.1598/JAAL.52.5.3
Frey, N. (2006). We cant afford to rest on our laurels: Creating a district-wide content literacy
instructional plan. NAASP Bulletin, 90, 37-48. doi: 10.1177/0192636505283862
Gray, K.C., & Herr, E.L. (2006). Other ways to win: Creating alternatives for high school
graduates. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Gray, T., & Madson, L. (2007). Ten easy ways to engage your students. College Teaching, 55,
83-87. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.55.2.83-87
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology
Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/infoproc.html
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 23-32. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2001_4
Kiewra, K. A. (1991). Aids to lecture learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 37-53. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep2601_3
Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability
and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33-44. doi: 10.1016/0361476X(88)90004-5
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S.L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of notetaking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 20, 172-187. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1995.1011
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D.
(1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
240-245. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.83.2.240
Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., Eveleigh, E. (2009). A meta-analytic review of guided notes.
Education and Treatment of Children, 32(3), 421-444. Retrieved from
37
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.ndsu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=111&sid=3f80
adc6-3cf7-4438-b978-d94561fff8cb%40sessionmgr104
Lieberman, D.A. (2000). Learning: Behavior and cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Optimising the use of note-taking as an external
cognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 619635. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00906.x
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, K. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (2009). Teaching through text: Reading and writing in the
content areas. Boston: Pearson.
Orey, M. (2001). Information processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,
teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Ormond, J. E. (2013). Human learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Pauk, W. (2001). How to study in college. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007).
What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167180. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.167
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086
Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and
students notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education 50, 283-297. doi:
10.1080/03634520109379256
Watson, A., Kehler, M., & Martino, W. (2010). The problem of boys literacy
underachievement: Raising some questions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53,
356-361. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.53.5.1
Authors
Lori Quintus is a Family and Consumer Sciences teacher at Century High School,
Bismarck, North Dakota.
Mari Borr is an assistant professor in Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education;
Stacy Duffield is an associate professor in Teacher Education; Larry Napoleon is an assistant
professor in Teacher Education; and Anita Welch is an assistant professor in Teacher Education
at North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
Citation
Quintus, L., Borr, M., Duffield, S., Napoleon, L., & Welch, A. (2012). The impact of the Cornell
note-taking method on students performance in a high school family and consumer
sciences class. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 30(1), 27-38.
Available at http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/v30no1/v30no1Quintus.pdf
38

Note Taking Methods

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Note Taking Methods

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET April 2006 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 5 Issue 2 Article 8

THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHING NOTE-TAKING AND INFORMATION MAPPING ON

Figure 2a. Pre-test scores of control and study groups

Figure 2b. Post-test scores of control and study groups

Figure 2c. Delayed post-test scores of control and study groups

Table 2. F-values of variance analysis for different LDT categories

Table 3. Scheffe tests for control and study groups

Table 4. Level Determination Test Samples for each type.

mer can have the blood tranfer from Ali

A Research Based Approach to Encouraging Eective

In recent years, the increased deployment of computer labs, laptop initiatives,

Why Take Notes?

Encoding: Learning While Taking Notes

External Storage: Learning from Reading Notes

Additional Issues to Keep in Mind regarding Note-Taking

Facilitating Good Note-taking

The Role of DyKnow Vision in Facilitating Note-taking

Using DyKnow to Support Effective Note-Taking

Using DyKnow to support Useful Note Review

2 Previous Research into Note-taking

Effective note-taking appears to have a particularly positive impact on a students

or extemporaneously during class, DyKnow Vision allows the students and

Berque, D. (2005). Private communication of survey results.

RESEARCH ON STUDENT NOTETAKING: IMPLICATIONS FOR FACULTY

signals of emphasis, structure, and relationships.

Fig 1: Model of a Matrix Diagram

most likely to fend

regressive behavior and

(Robinson and Kiewa, 1991, p. 456)

types of materials they expect students to retain and master.

Student Guide to Effective Notetaking and Review

* Listen as closely at the end

Reorganize and rehearse.

Evaluate your method.

* Do your notes help you study?

Back to Overall Occasional Papers Index

The How and Why of Note Taking

How Hard Can It Be?

One source compared skilled note taking to an act of original composition.

Tips for Students

Date and label notes at the top of the page

The Importance and Practicality of Modeling and Practicing

The Learning Centre http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au

A Few Tips About Format

identifying the information relevant to your task

Set out your notebooks so that you have a

having a system of note-taking that works for you

Reading Note-taking Strategies

Columns that distinguish the source

Are you reading for a general understanding of a topic or concept?

2. Identify the Purpose and Function of a Text

3. Identify How Information is Organised

well known ideas to least known ideas

Regular cameras obviously will not function

waterproofing 35 mm and roll-film cameras,

can be used above or below the water. Most

but one, Nikonos, is a true 35 mm system

changed on the surface, the camera will

b) Nikonos (35 mm)

of these , which have focal lengths of 90

water; the other two of these, which have

special housing necessary

to 70 mm. Four lenses are available : two

a few special models are amphibious they