ArticlePDF Available

Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students’ general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported flexibility in their note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are flexible in their note-taking behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20
Memory
ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20
Note-taking habits of 21st Century college
students: implications for student learning,
memory, and achievement
Kayla Morehead, John Dunlosky, Katherine A. Rawson, Rachael Blasiman &
R. Benjamin Hollis
To cite this article: Kayla Morehead, John Dunlosky, Katherine A. Rawson, Rachael Blasiman
& R. Benjamin Hollis (2019): Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for
student learning, memory, and achievement, Memory
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1569694
Published online: 12 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student
learning, memory, and achievement
Kayla Morehead
a
, John Dunlosky
a
, Katherine A. Rawson
a
, Rachael Blasiman
b
and R. Benjamin Hollis
c
a
Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Salem;
c
Oce of Continuing & Distance Education, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
ABSTRACT
Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of
note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past
four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes
on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies
have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for
student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students
general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological
advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior
surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still
reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported exibility in their
note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often
deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are exible in their note-taking
behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 6 June 2018
Accepted 6 January 2019
KEYWORDS
Note-taking; note-taking
habits; survey; technology;
online courses
With the exception of three reported studies concerning the
utility of notetaking in the fties , little other recent attention
in the area of student practices has been evident. The eort
reported here attempts to assess current student attitudes
and practices in the area of notetaking, and to compare
these to earlier ndings. (Palmatier & Bennett, 1974, p. 215)
This quote comes from one of the most recent large-scale
surveys focused on student note-taking, which was pub-
lished in 1974. Noting the lack of relevant research from
the 1950s to the 1970s, Palmatier and Bennett raised a
concern that the appearance of the spiral-bound note-
book(p. 216) would affect student note-taking. We
suspect that most researchers will agree that the techno-
logical advances introduced in education since 1974 far
exceed the advance of spiral-bound notebooks. Moreover,
recent survey research indicates that when students are
preparing for high-stakes exams, they largely rely on mem-
orising their notes (Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009;
Morehead, Rhodes, & DeLozier, 2016). Given that the
content of notes is foundational to what students learn, it
is important to understand when and where students
take notes as well as the strategies students use when
studying their notes to enhance memory and learning of
course content. Accordingly, the main goals of the
present research were to provide an extensive and up-to-
date survey of student note-taking habits both for lec-
tures in classrooms and on-line courses as well as to
compare student note-taking habits against what is
considered best practices. To provide a context for the
present research, we rst discuss what has changed since
1974 and then describe an empirical framework for evalu-
ating the effectiveness of studentsnote-taking habits.
Then, we briey review prior survey studies (in the
context of the framework) and end with an overview of
the present research.
Changes since 1974 that may Inuence note-taking
habits
So, what has happened since 1974 that may be relevant to
note-taking and the degree to which students are taking
eective notes and learning from them? With respect to
taking notes, unlike the rst laptop computer (which was
introduced in 1981, had no battery, and weighed close to
25 pounds), modern laptop computers are lightweight
and can be readily used to take notes in the classroom.
More recently, eWriters (e.g., Boogie BoardeWriters,
which function as electronic paper) and other tablets
(e.g., iPads, which have eWriting capabilities as well as
other functions) now allow students to take notes long-
hand without using paper. As for teaching technologies,
many advances have been made that could impact
whether and how students take notes. PowerPoint was
introduced in 1990 and is now used by many teachers to
present course content during lectures. The internet has
led to enrollment in online courses in which students
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Kayla Morehead kmorehea@kent.edu Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA
MEMORY
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1569694
view lectures and course content online without being in a
classroom.
Given these advances in note-taking and instructional
technologies, one could safely argue that the need to
update our knowledge about studentsnote-taking behav-
iour is greater now than in 1974 when the largest impact
on note-taking was the invention of the spiral notebook.
Given that notes themselves represent the focal stimuli rel-
evant to a great deal of student learning, understanding
how students take notes and how they go about studying
them when preparing for exams will have important impli-
cations for memory investigators who seek to improve
student achievement. Accordingly, we conducted a large-
scale survey of studentsnote-taking that both connects
with earlier research (by using several of the survey ques-
tions from prior research) and extends it (by surveying stu-
dents about note-taking with respect to the
aforementioned technological advances). Furthermore,
the present survey included more detailed questions
about studentsnote-taking beyond whether they take
notes, so as to help memory investigators generate
hypotheses and research ideas based on students
reported note-taking behaviour.
Empirical framework for interpreting students
note-taking habits
Students largely self-regulate their note-taking. Teachers
may oer scaolds (e.g., an outline of a lecture or copies
of PowerPoint slides) to help students take notes, but it is
typically up to each student to decide how and when to
take notes. Unfortunately, the literature on self-regulated
learning has revealed that how students regulate their
learning including decisions about which strategies to
use and when to use them often does not match empiri-
cal evidence about how best to regulate learning (Bjork,
Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). For instance, many students
report preferring to prepare for exams by rereading their
textbooks instead of testing themselves (Gurung,
Weidert, & Jeske, 2010; Hartwig & Dunlosky, 2012; More-
head et al., 2016), whereas evidence indicates that reread-
ing is less eective than self-testing (for reviews, see
Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013;
Roediger & Butler, 2011).
Accordingly, to provide a framework for interpreting the
outcomes from studentsreports of their note-taking
habits, we rst consider the relevant empirical evidence
concerning best practices. We also organised the frame-
work on the distinction between the two main functions
of note-taking: encoding and storage. The encoding func-
tion concerns the degree to which the act of taking
notes improves student learning of the target materials,
whereas the storage function concerns how students sub-
sequently attempt to learn from their notes and its impact
on test performance (for a review, see Kiewra, 1989;
Kobayashi, 2005; Kobayashi, 2006).
Concerning the encoding function, two aspects of note-
taking are arguably most relevant: (a) what method stu-
dents use to take notes and (b) whether students
attempt to organise their notes as they take them. With
respect to note-taking methods, students can take notes
by longhand in a notebook or using an electronic device
(e.g., a tablet or eWriter), or they can type notes on a
laptop computer or tablet. In empirical research of which
method is best, taking notes longhand has generally pro-
duced as good or better performance outcomes when
investigated in real-life courses and in the laboratory
(Carter, Greenberg, & Walker, 2017; Luo, Kiewra, Flanigan,
& Peteranetz, 2018; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014; for
one exception, see Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013). Using a
laptop in a classroom may be especially disruptive,
because computer use (typing, access to the internet)
while taking notes can be distracting for the laptop user
and potentially for students sitting near them (e.g., Sana,
Weston, & Cepeda, 2013). Thus, key questions concerning
the encoding function of note-taking include, Will the
majority of students report taking notes longhand, or do
many now use laptops? And, do any students use both
note-taking methods, and if so, why?
The encoding function of note-taking may also be ben-
etted by organising and transforming notes, versus just
copying a lecture verbatim. The idea here is that transform-
ing a lecture into ones own words and organising (or inte-
grating) the lecture content can boost performance, partly
because such generative processes are more eortful than
passively copying a lecture. Better organisation (e.g., using
outlines or the Cornell note-taking method) may support
more eective restudy and subsequently improve the
storage function. Thus, to investigate their approach to
note-taking in the present survey, students who indicated
taking notes also reported whether they tended to copy
notes or organise them in some manner.
The eectiveness of the storage function is largely
reected by how students study their notes, and some
study strategies are better than others. For instance, to
enhance the storage function, students should test them-
selves on the content of notes instead of merely rereading
them (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013; Roediger & Butler, 2011).
General surveys of studentsstudy behaviour suggest
that they tend to overly rely on less eective strategies
(e.g., rereading), and outcomes from the present survey
provide converging evidence about how students use
their notes to prepare for exams.
Finally, one novel aspect of the present research per-
tains to revealing how students approach taking notes in
online courses, which could have implications for both
the encoding and storage function of note-taking. One
possibility is that some students will not take notes, with
the idea that they will merely view the online lectures
and supporting materials to prepare for exams. Recent
research suggests that students who rely on reviewing
online lectures perform poorly (e.g., Liles, Vuk, & Tariq,
2018). But, is it common for students to rely less on
2K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
note-taking for online than in-class lectures? To answer this
question, we compared reports of note-taking habits for
those students who were enrolled in both kinds of
course when taking the survey.
Because students may not always make the best choices
about how to take notes, we included several other ques-
tions on the survey to provide possible insight into why
they might make sub-optimal decisions (e.g., Were they
taught how to take notes?) and whether they are inter-
ested in learning how to improve their note-taking skills.
Historical overview of survey research on note-
taking habits
The rst two surveys on note-taking were conducted by
Charters (1924,1925). The purpose of these studies was
to investigate student study behaviour, including note-
taking. In both survey, female college students (44 in the
rst survey, 258 in the second) were interviewed about
their study habits. In the rst survey, most women reported
taking notes because it was often required and that note-
taking was useful for organising information in a brief
amount of time. Participants in the second survey reported
that they often kept their notes, thought notes were useful
for review, and believed they would have done poorer on
exams if they had not taken notes. Despite believing note-
taking was important, 68% reported receiving no instruc-
tion on how to take notes. The next survey (Danskin &
Burnett, 1952) investigated what study techniques superior
students used, including how they took notes. The
researchers interviewed 37 students who were in the top
of their class. Eighty-nine percent of students reported
taking notes, and 86% reported organising their notes
while taking them. No survey research on note-taking
behaviour was conducted again until 1974 when Palmatier
and Bennett administered the rst large-scale survey (N=
223) pertaining specically to student note-taking. They
asked participants how they took notes and about their
use of various note-taking techniques. Ninety-nine
percent of students reported taking notes during lectures,
and 96% believed that note-taking was essential for
success in college. Students reported taking notes in
spiral notebooks, on loose-leaf paper, or on legal pads.
Since this survey, few other studies of note-taking
behaviour have been conducted, and these typically did
not include questions relevant to recent technological
advances.
1
Nevertheless, we discuss the subset of these
surveys from which we adapted questions for the
present survey. Hartley and Davies (1978) administered a
survey to investigate why students take notes. They sur-
veyed 52 American students about their note-taking
beliefs and skills. Ninety-eight percent of participants
believed note-taking was important, 56% reported receiv-
ing instruction on note-taking, and 67% wished they had
better note-taking skills.
Other research has attempted to develop theories of
note-taking based on student perceptions. The rst of
such studies by Van Meter, Yokoi, and Pressley (1994) did
so by interviewing 252 students. All students reported
taking notes. Most students reported that their note-
taking was directed towards the goal of doing well in a
course. They reported taking notes for several reasons;
the most common reasons included paying attention
during lectures, organising information from lectures, or
using notes as a study aid. They reported reviewing their
notes by rereading or organising them. Consistent with
this nding, Nandagopal and Ericsson (2012) reported
that 100% of students reported reviewing their notes,
and Tran and Lawson (2001) reported that reference and
repetition were the most popular review strategies (44%
and 76% respectively). Based on the aforementioned
empirical framework of best practices, many students par-
ticipating in this survey were not fully capitalising on the
storage function of note-taking.
A more recent survey of student note-taking, adminis-
tered between 2012 and 2013 involving 435 students,
reported that 99.6% of students took notes at least some
of the time with 93.8% reporting taking notes often or
always (as reported in a general chapter on note-taking
by Peverly & Wolf, 2019). In the same survey, 96.5% of stu-
dents reported taking notes on paper at least sometimes
and 53.4% reported taking notes on a computer at least
sometimes. In another survey by Aguilar-Roca, Williams,
and ODowd (2012), 50% of students reported taking
notes on paper and about 22% reported taking notes on
a laptop. Although a smaller percentage reported using
laptops, as noted in the framework above, these students
may be at a disadvantage, and so might students sitting
near them during in-class lectures.
Of course, these outcomes support the anecdotal obser-
vations of anyone who has recently taught (or taken) an in-
class lecture in college: most students take notes in some
fashion or another. But, do they also take notes for lectures
during online courses, and have they begun to adopt
newer technologies (e.g., eWriters or tablets) while taking
notes? Given that most students take and review notes,
how they engage in note-taking with technology has
important consequences for classroom learning.
Overview of present survey of note-taking habits
Given that few large-scale surveys have focused exclusively
on studentsnote-taking (with one of the largest scale
surveys being published over forty years ago), and only a
few surveys have addressed the impact of technology on
note-taking (e.g., Aguilar-Roca et al., 2012; Fried, 2008;
Peverly & Wolf, 2019), our goal for the present investigation
was to update the literature by surveying students about
their note-taking and the impact of technology on their
note-taking, including the use of electronic devices in
class and note-taking in online courses. We recruited a
large sample by collecting data from students at Kent
State University on the main campus, on the regional cam-
puses, and enrolled in online courses.
MEMORY 3
To develop survey questions, we used questions from
prior surveys and developed new questions to assess the
use of technology in the classroom and note-taking in
online courses. Many questions focused on how students
take and review notes to emphasise the encoding function
(taking notes) and storage function (reviewing notes) as
described above. Given that many experimental studies
have investigated these functions of note-taking, we
asked students several questions about how they
engaged in both functions. We also asked participants
about their note-taking skills and whether they had
received training on note-taking. We describe these ques-
tions more fully in the Method section.
To summarise, our main goals were to provide an
extensive and up-to-date survey of student note-taking
habits. Based on prior evidence, we expected most stu-
dents to report taking notes in a class and studying
them in a relatively ineective manner. Our empirical fra-
mework also emphasises the importance of understand-
ing the use of technology, because its ineective use
could result in poor learning. For instance, we expected
at least some students to report using laptops (which
can undermine performance), but only a few surveys
have investigated how widespread laptops are being
used in classrooms. Because online courses provide
video content that students can review if they would
like, we expected some students to report not taking
notes in these courses. Again, not taking notes would
be expected to limit their learning, but how widespread
this potential problem may be is currently unknown.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from three groups of under-
graduate students at Kent State University. All students
completed the survey for course credit. The rst group
(N= 312) consisted of students enrolled in psychology
courses on the main campus. The second group (N= 37)
consisted of students enrolled in psychology courses on
the regional campuses. Although students in these
cohorts may have been enrolled in online courses and
hence could answer questions about their note-taking in
this venue, we also wanted to ensure enough students
who participated were enrolled in online courses. Thus, a
third group (N= 238) was sampled from students who
were enrolled in at least one web-enhanced course
where lectures were online. All students signed up for
the survey through the universitys SONA system. Although
the rst two groups consisted of students enrolled in psy-
chology courses, most students in the sample were not
psychology majors. Across all three groups, only 17% of
participants (101) were psychology majors.
Nine students completed the survey through both the
main campus and online group. Because these students
completed the survey twice, their data from the second
time completing the survey were excluded from analyses.
Data for one participant who did not nish the survey
were also excluded.
Demographic information was similar across all samples
(see Table 1), as were general results. Because our aim was
to collect a large sample and results for all three samples
were similar, their data were combined for a total sample
size of 577.
2
Materials
The survey consisted of 55 questions (see Appendix for a
list of all questions asked), but some questions were con-
ditional based on answers to prior questions. For
instance, if students reported not taking notes in class,
they did not answer questions about note-taking behav-
iour in class. Therefore, most participants did not answer
every question. In the next sections, we discuss the
origin of and rationale for the questions used in the
present survey.
Table 1. Demographic Information from All Samples.
Question Choices
Main
Campus Regional Online
Gender (Q1)
a
Male 24 19 41
Female 75 78 58
Other 1 3 1
Age (Q2) Under 18 0 5 0
1822 97 73 95
2325 2 5 3
2530 0 5 2
3040 0 5 0
40+ 0 5 0
Ethnicity (Q3) Hispanic/
Latino
202
Native
American
000
Asian 3 0 4
African
American
10 8 13
Middle Eastern 2 3 4
Caucasian 83 89 77
1st Language English
(Q4)
Yes 97 100 91
No 3 0 9
Year (Q7) Freshmen 47 35 60
Sophomore 18 24 27
Junior 17 22 10
Senior 18 19 3
High School GPA (Q8) 1.01.9 0 0 0
2.02.9 7 11 13
3.03.5 46 24 45
3.64.0 47 65 43
College GPA (Q9) 0.00.9 0 0 0
1.01.9 0 5 1
2.02.9 18 16 14
3.03.5 28 27 30
3.64.0 17 27 10
1st Semester 37 24 44
Note. Numbers reported are percentages of total N per sample.
a
Q refers to
the actual questions to which participants responded, which are presented
in the Appendix.
4K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
Encoding and storage
Concerning encoding, students were asked about their
note-taking behaviour during both in-class and online lec-
tures. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.
These questions included: whether students took notes
in class, if they believed that note-taking was essential for
eective learning, if they took notes dierently depending
on the lecture, and if they tried to organise their notes
(questions adapted from Bonner & Holliday, 2006;
Danskin & Burnett, 1952; Dunkel & Davy, 1989; Fried,
2008; Hartley & Davies, 1978; Palmatier & Bennett, 1974;
Van Meter et al., 1994). Other questions were developed
by the authors for the present survey and included what
devices students used to take notes, if they took notes
dierently in smaller classes, and if having PowerPoint out-
lines aected their note-taking behaviour. Critically, we
developed questions about note-taking behaviour during
online lectures to parallel questions about note-taking
during in-class lectures to investigate whether note-
taking behaviour diered for online classes. The nal set
of items consisted of a series of true/false statements
adapted from Hartley and Davies (1978) and Dunkel and
Davy (1989). These items were statements about note-
taking behaviour, and students were asked to decide
whether the statements were true of themselves. We also
created a new item about whether students played
games or were on the internet on their laptops during
class.
Concerning storage, students were asked if they
reviewed their notes and believed that reviewing their
notes was important for learning. If they reported review-
ing their notes, they were asked how they reviewed
them. For this question, they were given several options
from which to choose, such as rereading notes, highlight-
ing or marking them, or testing themselves on their
notes (adapted from Badger, White, Sutherland, & Haggis,
2001; Hartwig & Dunlosky, 2012; Morehead et al., 2016;
Tran & Lawson, 2001; Van Meter et al., 1994).
Note-taking skills and training
Finally, students were asked if they believed they took
good notes and if they wished they had better note-
taking skills. They were then asked if they had received
training on how to take notes (questions adapted from
Dunkel & Davy, 1989; Hartley & Davies, 1978; Palmatier &
Bennett, 1974). If they responded yes to this question,
they were asked to explain when they were taught, who
taught them, and for how long they were taught.
Procedure
This survey was approved by the university Institutional
Review Board. Participants completed the survey at their
convenience by following a link to the survey on Qualtrics.
Participants took nine minutes on average to complete the
survey. They rst completed demographic information,
then answered questions about note-taking including
questions about the encoding function of notes (in class-
rooms, during online classes, and in general), questions
about the storage function of notes, and questions about
their note-taking skills and training.
Results
We present responses to survey questions in Tables 28,
and we consider the outcomes in relation to the aforemen-
tioned empirical framework in the Discussion section.
Given that not all students answered every question
(because the presentation of some questions was con-
ditional on prior answers), we also included the number
of respondents (in parentheses) for each question. Impor-
tantly, in most tables, we included not only responses
from the present survey but also the responses from any
prior surveys that included similar questions about note-
taking. Results from research published in 2000 or later
are presented under columns labelled twenty-rst
Century, and results from research published before
2000 are presented under columns labelled twentieth
Century. Accordingly, a quick scan of these tables provides
a comparison across survey studies and highlights those
questions and responses that are unique to the present
survey. In the rest of the Results section, we highlight a
few of the notable outcomes. We encourage readers to
review the tables for further details.
Encoding
Classroom lectures
Results for questions pertaining to note-taking in class-
rooms are presented in Table 2. Consistent with prior
research (Bonner & Holliday, 2006; Dunkel & Davy, 1989;
Hartley & Davies, 1978; Palmatier & Bennett, 1974), most
students reported taking notes in class (96%), whereas
88% of participants reported that taking notes was necess-
ary for eective learning. Most students reported taking
notes longhand in a notebook (86%), but some (46%)
reported taking notes on a laptop. Thirty-two percent of
the students reported taking notes both in a notebook
and on a laptop (not presented in Table 2); these students
were asked to explain why they used more than one
device. When asked to explain, they reported using a
laptop when the instructor spoke quickly (20%), using a
laptop when PowerPoint slides were available (20%), or
that it depended on the class (20%; values not reported
in Table 2).
Fifty-six percent of students reported trying to organise
their notes rather than merely copying what the teacher
said. Seventy-four percent reported taking notes dierently
based on the class. When asked to explain, these student
reported changing their note-taking behaviour depending
on the teachers style (21%), the discipline (e.g., math vs.
psychology; 18%), or whether outlines or PowerPoint
slides were available online (17%; values not in Table 2).
MEMORY 5
Online lectures
Thirty-eight percent of participants (n= 220) reported
being enrolled in a course where most or all of the lectures
were online. Results for questions pertaining to note-taking
during online lectures are presented in Table 3. Unlike in-
class lectures, only about half of the students reported
taking notes during online lectures (49%), but 58%
reported that note-taking was necessary for eective learn-
ing. When asked why they did not take notes, 67% of these
students reported not taking notes because the lecture
material is available online as either video lectures or
slides, so they believed taking notes was unnecessary.
Another 20% reported not taking notes because they
were bored or lazy (not reported in Table 3). Of those
who reported taking notes, most reported using a note-
book (86%; 20% reported using a notebook and a laptop)
and trying to organise their notes (70%).
It is possible that students enrolled in online classes
dier from those who only attend in-class lectures.
Hence, we also explored how students enrolled in online
classes took notes in their in-class lectures. Results are pre-
sented in Table 4, which includes in-class and online
lecture outcomes from only students enrolled in online
classes. Note that results for in-class lectures are similar
to results for all participants (Table 2), indicating that
students who enroll in both kinds of course do not take
notes dierently in general, but take notes substantially
less often in their online courses than in their in-class
lectures.
General encoding questions
Results for general encoding questions are reported in
Table 5. Most students reported that their teachers pro-
vided PowerPoint slides (70%), and over half of those
students reported that they took notes dierently
when PowerPoint slides were provided than when they
were not, either reporting that they took notes on the
provided handouts (49%) or did not take notes at all
(16%). They also reported that when PowerPoint slides
were provided they took the same amount of notes
(48%) or less notes (41%). Also, the majority (66%) of stu-
dents reported not learning about Cornell notes,
suggesting that this organisational technique is not
being widely used in this cohort.
Responses to the true/false statements adapted from
Dunkel and Davy (1989) and Hartley and Davies (1978)
are presented at the bottom of Table 5. Most results
were similar across surveys. However, results diered for
two items in that, compared to prior research, more
Table 2. Note-taking in Classroom Lectures.
Question Choices Present Survey Twenty-rst Century Twentieth Century
Do you take notes? (Q10) Yes 96 (552) 9199.6
3,12
89100
4,11,14
Do you feel that taking notes is necessary? (Q12) Yes 88 (510) -- 9498
5,7,11
What do you use to take notes? (Q15) Notebook 86 (477) 5097
1,12
100
11
Laptop 46 (255) 2264
1,6,12
--
Tablet 1 (7) 6
12
--
eWriter 0 (1) -- --
Other 1 (8) -- --
Do you try to organise your notes or copy what the
teacher says? (Q19)
Organise 56 (307) 78
3
86
4
Copy 30 (164) -- --
Depends 15 (81) -- --
How do you organise your notes? (Q20) Rephrase 36 (178) -- --
Bulleted list/Outline 85 (412) -- --
Cornell Notes 4 (19) -- --
Mapping 6 (27) -- --
Other 3 (15) -- --
Do you take notes dierently depending on the class? (Q21) Yes 74 (408) -- 8396
5,7
Do you take more notes in smaller classes? (Q23) Yes 30 (163) -- --
Do you take notes in some lectures, but not others? (Q11) Yes 37 (212) -- --
What else do you take notes on? (Q24) Textbook Readings 86 (477) -- --
Other Readings 46 (255) -- --
In-class Activities 1 (7) -- --
Class Videos 0 (1) -- --
Other 1 (8) -- --
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents. The last two columns present data from prior
research reecting questions similar to those asked in the present survey. Superscripts denote which studies were pooled for values in the table.
Only studies reporting quantitative outcomes were included. For some questions, responses do not add to 100% because students could select mul-
tiple options. We did not include the percentage responding no for yes/no options.
6K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
students in the present investigation reported (1) that they
would not take notes if they did not have to take exams
and (2) that they took notes to avoid reading the textbook.
Storage function of note-taking
Results for questions pertaining to the storage function of
notes are presented in Table 6. Most students reported
reviewing their notes (93%), and most of these students
(92%) reported doing so by reading their notes. Although
less popular than rereading, about half of the students
reported testing themselves on their notes.
Note-taking skills and training
Responses to questions pertaining to note-taking skills and
training are presented in Table 7. Most students reported
taking good notes (89%), although 58% reported
wanting better note-taking skills. Forty-eight percent of
students reported being taught note-taking skills, and of
these students, most reported being taught note-taking
skills in middle school or high school by a teacher.
Gender dierences in note-taking
Prior research has revealed gender dierences in note-
taking behaviour. For example, Reddington, Peverly, and
Block (2015) reported that females recorded signicantly
more information in their notes than did males. Because
gender dierences have been reported in prior research,
we investigated them in the present research. In particular,
we compared responses on some questions that may dier
between males and females based on prior research. These
results are presented in Table 8, and for interested readers, a
table of comparisons for all questions can be obtained from
the rst author. As shown in Table 8, a few dierences
occurred. Taking notes during in-class lectures was reported
more often by females than males (χ
2
(2, n= 577) = 7.99, p
< .05), and believing that note-taking during in-class lec-
tures is necessary for eective learning was reported more
often by females than males (χ
2
(2, n= 577) = 24.48, p
< .001). When PowerPoint slides were provided, females
were more likely than males to say they took notes on hand-
outs and less likely to say they took fewer notes (χ
2
(2, n=
565) = 13.07, p< .05). Finally, as compared to males, more
females reported taking good notes (χ
2
(2, n= 577) =
14.82, p< .01). Although these results were exploratory,
they are consistent with prior research on gender dier-
ences in note-taking.
Discussion
To overview, the present research investigated students
note-taking behaviour both for traditional in-class lectures
and online lectures. Most students reported taking notes
and believing note-taking was essential for eective learn-
ing. Moreover, when taking notes, the majority of students
reported organising them during in-class lectures (56%,
Table 2) and online lectures (70%, Table 3). Although
such organisation may not always support better perform-
ance (see discussion of the empirical framework in the
Table 3. Note-taking in Online Lectures.
Question Choices
Online
Lectures
Do you take notes? (Q26) Yes 49 (107)
Do you feel that taking notes is
necessary? (Q28)
Yes 58 (127)
Do you feel that reviewing notes is
necessary? (Q29)
Yes 80 (175)
What do you use to take notes? (Q30) Notebook 86 (92)
Laptop 32 (34)
Tablet 2 (2)
eWriter 0 (0)
Other 1 (1)
Do you try to organise your notes or
copy what the teacher says? (Q33)
Organise 70 (75)
Copy 25 (27)
Depends 5 (5)
How do you organise your notes? (Q34) Rephrase 42 (45)
Bulleted list/
Outline
83 (89)
Cornell Notes 1 (1)
Mapping 6 (6)
Other 2 (2)
What else do you take notes on? (Q35) Textbook Readings 72 (68)
Other Readings 32 (30)
Online
demonstrations
46 (44)
Other videos 33 (31)
Websites 25 (24)
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the
number of respondents.
Table 4. In-class and Onine Lecture results for Students who Reported taking
Online Classes.
Question Choices
In-class
Lectures
Online
Lectures
Do you take notes during
lectures?
Yes 96 (210) 49 (107)
Do you feel that taking notes
is necessary for eective
learning?
Yes 88 (193) 58 (127)
What do you use to take
notes?
Notebook 86 (180) 86 (92)
Laptop 55 (115) 31.8 (34)
Tablet 2 (4) 1.9 (2)
eWriter 0 (0) 0 (0)
Other 2 (4) 0.9 (1)
Do you try to organise your
notes or copy what the
teacher says?
Organise 58 (121) 70 (75)
Copy 30 (63) 25 (27)
Depends 12 (26) 5 (5)
If you organise your notes,
how do you do so?
Rephrase 27 (56) 21 (45)
Bulleted list/
Outline
74 (156) 42 (89)
Cornell Notes 2 (5) 0.5 (1)
Mapping 6 (13) 3 (6)
Other 2 (5) 1 (2)
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the
number of respondents.
MEMORY 7
Introduction), it does suggest that most students attempt
to actively process lecture content versus passively copy.
And, as indicated by directly comparing the present out-
comes to those of prior surveys (Tables 2 and 3,Tables
57), these reports are consistent with the general note-
taking literature that demonstrates how much students
value taking notes during in-class lectures and reviewing
them to prepare for exams.
Other results are relatively unique to the present survey,
and we will highlight those outcomes with respect to the
empirical framework. Concerning the encoding function,
what method do students report using while taking
notes? A key outcome of the present research is that
students reported exibility in their note-taking. Some stu-
dents reported using both notebooks and laptops to take
notes, and most students who reported using both also
indicated that they chose which method to use based on
how quickly the instructor spoke or whether PowerPoints
slides were available. These results suggest that at least
some students attempt to regulate their note-taking so
as to increase the chances that their notes are complete.
These responses also suggest that the relative ecacy of
note-taking devices may depend on the lecturer style
and course material. That is, using a laptop to take notes
may be benecial in some circumstances, such as when
lectures do not include visuals (that would need to be
Table 5. General Encoding Questions.
Question Choices Present Survey
Twenty-rst
Century
Twentieth
Century
Do your professors provide PowerPoint slides? (Q36) Yes 70 (402) -- --
No 2 (12) -- --
Some do 28 (163) -- --
Do you take notes dierently when PowerPoint
slides are available? (Q37)
Yes, I take notes on handouts. 49 (277) -- --
Yes, I do not take notes. 16 (90) -- --
No 35 (198) -- --
Do you take the same amount of notes when PowerPoint
slides are available? (Q38)
Yes 48 (270) -- --
No, I take less notes 41 (231) -- --
No, I take more notes 11 (64) -- --
Have you heard of Cornell notes? (Q39) Yes 34 (197) -- --
No 66 (380) -- --
I sometimes nd my note-taking interferes with my immediate
understanding of the lecture. (Q53)
True 67 (384) -- 5460
5,7
If I did not have to take exams, I would not take notes. (Q54) True 52 (297) -- 2938
5,7
I take notes so that I will not have to read the textbook. (Q55) True 46 (266) -- 1015
5,7
I often doodle instead of taking notes. (Q51) True 28 (161) -- 2530
5,7
I am often on the internet or playing games instead of taking notes. (Q52) True 22 (124) -- --
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents.
Table 6. Storage Function of Note-taking.
Questions Choices Present Survey Twenty-rst Century Twentieth Century
Do you review notes? (Q42) Yes 93 (539) 100
10
48
14
How do you review notes? (Q43) Rereading 92 (497) 2876
2,13
--
Make ashcards 56 (303)
Highlight/mark them 56 (302) 9
13
--
Test myself 56 (300)
Copy them 36 (193) 2833
2,8,9
12
14
Summarise notes 29 (157) -- --
Add questions 9 (47) -- --
Other 2 (10) -- --
If you take notes, why do you do so? (Q41) So I can review them later 85 (490) 21
13
9698
5.7
To aid learning 79 (454) -- --
It helps me learn by writing 63 (365) -- --
Because I have to take exams 63 (362) 15
13
29
7
So I pay attention during the lecture 62 (356) -- --
Because it is expected 21 (123) -- --
Because the teacher can see me 6 (34) -- --
Other 1 (6) -- --
I do not take notes 2 (9) -- --
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents.
8K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
illustrated by hand) or when a lecturer speaks quickly.
Given that some students reported using multiple note-
taking methods, future research should investigate the
degree to which studentschoices are adaptive that is,
do they choose the most eective method for a particular
context?
Students reported exibility in note-taking behaviour,
but is this exibility always benecial? For instance, about
half of the participants reported not taking notes in
online courses even though most of these students
reported taking notes during in-class lectures (Tables 3
and 4). They often explained that they did not take notes
because they believed that it was unnecessary to do so
given that the lectures are always available, suggesting
that they believe that notes only function as records of
lecture content that would be lost otherwise. However,
some note-taking studies have reported at least some
benet for taking notes compared to listening to a
lecture (see Kiewra, 1989; Kobayashi, 2005 for review). By
choosing not to take notes in online courses, students
may be negatively impacting their subsequent memory
for the course content, especially if they do not review
the video lectures (e.g., Liles et al., 2018). Even if they do,
merely viewing the video again may be analogous to
Table 7. Note-taking Skills and Training
Question Choices Present Survey
Twenty-rst
Century
Twentieth
Century
Do you take good notes? (Q40) Yes 89 (511) 94
12
--
Do you wish you had better note-taking skills? (Q48) Yes 58 (335) -- 5977
5,7
Were note-taking skills taught to you? (Q44) Yes 48 (276) -- 1756
5,7,11
When were you taught note-taking skills? (Q45) Elementary school 26 (72) -- --
Middle school 65 (180) -- --
High school 76 (210) -- --
Community college 2 (6) -- --
College 18 (50) -- --
Other 1 (3) -- --
Who taught you note-taking skills? (Q46) Teacher 96 (266) -- --
Professor 18 (49) -- --
Parent or Guardian 23 (64) -- --
Other 3 (7) -- --
For how long were you taught note-taking skills? (Q47) Part of a class period 31 (85) -- --
An entire class period 18 (49) -- --
A few class periods 45 (124) -- --
A month 4 (10) -- --
A semester 13 (36) -- --
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents.
Table 8. Responses by Gender.
Question Choices Male Female Other
Do you take notes in class? (Q10) Yes 92 (163) 97 (383) 100 (6)
Do you feel that note-taking is necessary for eective learning? (Q12) Yes 79 (139) 93 (365) 100 (6)
Do you take notes dierently when PowerPoints are available? (Q37) Yes, I take notes on handouts 39 (66) 54 (209) 33 (2)
Yes, I do not take notes 22 (37) 13 (52) 17 (1)
No 40 (68) 33 (127) 50 (3)
Do you take good notes? (Q40) Yes 82 (145) 92 (362) 67 (4)
What do you use to take notes in class? (Q15) Notebook 90 (146) 85 (326) 83 (5)
Laptop 39 (63) 49 (189) 50 (3)
Tablet 2 (4) 1 (3) 0 (0)
eWriter 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Other 0 (0) 2 (7) 17 (1)
Do you take notes online? (Q26) Yes 39 (24) 52 (82) 50 (1)
Do you feel note-taking online is necessary for eective learning? (Q28) Yes 53 (32) 60 (94) 50 (1)
Do you feel reviewing notes online is necessary for eective learning? (Q29) Yes 72 (43) 82 (130) 100 (2)
Do you review your notes? (Q42) Yes 90 (160) 95 (373) 100 (6)
Note. Main values are percentages, and the numbers in parentheses are the number of respondents.
MEMORY 9
rereading and hence would be a relatively ineective strat-
egy (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013); moreover, reviewing a
video may be less ecient than studying ones notes,
assuming that not all of the content in the lecture is critical
material. One straightforward implication is that many stu-
dents will need to be instructed to take notes while watch-
ing to-be-tested content from online courses.
Concerning the storage function (Table 6), when stu-
dents review their notes, the majority of students (92%)
report rereading them. Although this strategy is relatively
ineective on its own, over half of the students also
reported using ashcards (56%) or testing themselves
(56%), which are normatively more eective strategies. Of
course, students must use self-testing appropriately to
improve achievement. For instance, with respect to ash-
cards, students should continue testing themselves in a
session until they can correctly recall answers and return
to re-learn them (through testing and feedback) in
another session (for an overview of this use of self-
testing, called successive relearning, see Dunlosky &
Rawson, 2015). Unfortunately, in ashcard research using
authentic materials, it has taken students considerable
amount of practice to learn and correctly recall a small
set of conceptual denitions (e.g., Dunlosky & Rawson,
2015; Janes, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2018). So, when students
use ashcards to test themselves on dicult concepts
during a brief, single session, they benet little to none
from doing so (e.g., Lin, McDaniel, & Miyatsu, 2018).
Future research should be aimed at exploring the details
of how (and how often) students use self-testing to study
their notes and whether they eectively use instantiations
of self-testing (e.g., successive relearning) in a manner that
can enhance their learning and achievement.
Finally, it is perhaps not too surprising that some stu-
dentsreported note-taking habits do not match best prac-
tices, because about half (52%) of the students reported
that they had never been taught note-taking skills. And,
for those who did receive training, the amount of training
was often meager just a part of a class or in only a few
class periods (Table 7). Fortunately, close to 60% of the stu-
dents indicated that they wished they had better note-
taking habits, so many students would likely be receptive
to further instruction and training.
Future directions and Limitations
Results from the present survey suggest other future direc-
tions for note-taking research. First, as noted above, stu-
dents reported exibility in their note-taking, but their
decisions on how to take notes may not always be
eective. For example, students reported using laptops
when the lecturer spoke quickly or covered a lot of
material, but no research has investigated whether using
laptops to take notes is advantageous under these circum-
stances. Second, few students reported using eWriters or
tablets for note-taking, but as these devices become more
popular, how will they aect the amount and quality of
note-taking? For instance, is using an eWriter to take notes
comparable to taking notes longhand on paper for both
encoding and storage functions? Third, over half of students
reported never being taught note-taking skills, and many
who did report training indicated that they received instruc-
tion in middle school and high school when note-taking
may not be critical in many courses. So, how and when
should students be taught note-taking skills?
A limitation of the present research is that some changes
in reported note-taking habits that have arisen since the
1970s may not be due to historical cohort eects per se
but may have resulted from other dierences (e.g., demo-
graphic characteristics of the samples) across the survey
studies. Note, however, that the similarities in reported
note-taking habits across decades seem more prominent
than do the dierences, with the latter largely arising from
the development of new technologies (e.g., laptops) that
were not available in the 1970s. Another limitation is that
the survey was conducted at one large state-supported uni-
versity in the midwest of the United States. A question arises
about whether studentsnote-taking habits would be sub-
stantively dierent in other contexts, such as at private uni-
versities, in dierent countries and cultures, and so forth.
The present survey could be adapted to explore these poss-
ible dierences in future survey research.
Closing Remarks
In closing, classrooms have changed in many ways since
1974, with electronic note-taking devices, PowerPoint,
and online courses all potentially aecting student note-
taking. For the most part, students take notes now as
they did in the 1970s (even though more technology is
available for note-taking than ever before). However, stu-
dents reported exibility in their note-taking, as they
reported taking notes dierently (or not at all) based on
characteristics of their classes, and many students reported
not taking notes during online lectures even if they
reported taking notes during in-class lectures. How will
the classroom change over the next forty years? What
note-taking devices will be available to students, and
how will they aect how and when students take notes?
Or more problematic given that less than half of students
report taking notes in online courses as more content
becomes available online, will students take notes at all?
Given the importance of eective note-taking to memory
for and learning of course content, continuing to
examine student note-taking behaviour as technologies
change will be an important avenue for future research.
Notes
1. Surveys that included only a few questions about note-taking
are not discussed here (Carrier, Williams, & Dalgaard, 1988;
Isaacs, 1994; Kay & Lauricella, 2014).
2. Outcomes separated by sample are available from the rst
author.
10 K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF)
grant, STTR Phase II: Digital e-Writer for the Classroom, Grant
Number 413328. Any opinions, ndings, conclusions or recommen-
dations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reect the views of the NSF. The authors have no
nancial or non-nancial interest in the materials discussed in this
manuscript. Many thanks to Asad Khan, Annette Kratcoski, Duane Mar-
hefka, Erica Montbach, and Todd Packer for support and encourage-
ment with this project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF): [Grant
Number 413328].
References
1
Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & ODowd, D. K. (2012). The impact
of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large
lectures. Computers & Education,59, 13001308. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.05.002
2
Badger, R., White, G., Sutherland, P., & Haggis, T. (2001). Note perfect:
An investigation of how students view taking notes in lectures.
System,29, 405417. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00028-8
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning:
Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology,64,
417444. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
3
Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students
engage in note-taking strategies. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching,43, 786818. doi:10.1002/tea.20115
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers:
Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of
Educational Psychology,105, 299309. doi:10.1037/a0030367
Carrier, C. A., Williams, M. D., & Dalgaard, B. R. (1988). College students
perceptions of notetaking and their relationship to selected learner
characteristics and course achievement. Research in Higher
Education,28, 223239.
Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. S. (2017). The impact of com-
puter usage on academic performance: Evidence from a random-
ized trial at the United States Military Academy. Economics of
Education Review,56, 118132. doi:1016/j.econedurev.2016.12.005
Charters, J. A. (1924). Methods of study used by college women. The
Journal of Educational Research,10, 344355. doi:10.1080/
00220671.1924.10879513
Charters, J. A. (1925). How two hundred and fty-eight junior college
women study. The Journal of Educational Research,11,4148.
doi:10.1080/00220671.1925.10879527
4
Danskin, D. G., & Burnett, C. W. (1952). Study techniques of: Those
superior students. Journal of Counseling & Development,31, 181
186. doi:10.1002/j.2164-4918.1952.tb01433.x
5
Dunkel, P., & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture notetaking:
Perceptions of American & international students regarding the
value & practice of notetaking. English for Specic Purposes,8,33
50. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(89)90005-7
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and
successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding stu-
dentslearning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Psychology,1,7278.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T.
(2013). Improving studentslearning with eective learning
techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational
psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,14,458.
doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
6
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its eects on student learn-
ing. Computers & Education,50, 906914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2006.09.006
Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2010). Focusing on how stu-
dents study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
10,2835.
7
Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note-taking: A critical review.
Programmed Learning and Educational Technology,15, 207224.
doi:10.1080/0033039780150305
8
Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college stu-
dents: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,19, 126134. doi:10.3758/s13423-
011-0181-y
Isaacs, G. (1994). Lecturing practices and note-taking purposes. Studies
in Higher Education,19, 203216.
Janes, J. L., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). How do students use
self-testing across multiple study sessions when preparing for a
high-stakes exam? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition,7, 230240. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.11.003
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger IIIH. L. (2009). Metacognitive
strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when
they study on their own? Memory (Hove, England),17, 471479.
doi:10.1080/09658210802647009
Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2014). Investigating the benets and
challenges of using laptop computers in higher education.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,40,125. doi:10.
21432/T2VC76
Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage
paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review,1, 147172.
doi:10.1007/BF01326640
Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding eect of note-taking? A
meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
30, 242262. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined eects of note-taking/reviewing on
learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-ana-
lytic review. Educational Psychology,26, 459477. doi:10.1080/
01443410500342070
Liles, J., Vuk, J., & Tariq, S. (2018). Study habits of medical students: An
analysis of which study habits most contribute to success in the
preclinical years. MedEdPublish,7,116. doi:10.15694/mep.2018.
0000061.1
Lin, C., McDaniel, M. A., & Miyatsu, T. (2018). Eects of ashcards
on learning authentic materials: The role of detailed versus con-
ceptual ashcards and invidiaul dierences in structure-building
ability. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,7,
529539.
Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop
versus longhand note taking: Eects on lecture notes and achieve-
ment. Instructional Science,125. doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9458-0
9
Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & DeLozier, S. (2016). Instructor and
student knowledge of study strategies. Memory (Hove, England),
24, 257271. doi:10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than
the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking.
Psychological Science,25, 11591168. doi:10.1177/
0956797614524581
10
Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance
approach to the study of individual dierences in self-regulated
learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning
and Individual Dierences,22, 597609. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.
018
11
Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college
students. Journal of Reading,18, 215218. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/40009958.
MEMORY 11
12
Peverly, S. T., & Wolf, A. D. (2019). Note-taking. In J. Dunlosky & K. A.
Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
(pp. 320355). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reddington, L. A., Peverly, S. T., & Block, C. J. (2015). An examination of
some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender
dierences in lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing,28, 1155
1185. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9566-z
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval prac-
tice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,15,2027.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders
classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers &
Education,62,2431. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
13
Tran, T. A. T., & Lawson, M. (2001). Studentsprocedures for reviewing
lecture notes. International Education Journal,2, 278293.
14
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College studentstheory
of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking.
Journal of Educational Psychology,86, 323338. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.86.3.323
Instructions: For this study, you will be asked to ll out a brief online survey about note-taking in in-person and/or online classes.
Demographics
Q1. What is your gender? (male; female; other)
Q2. How old are you? (Under 18; 1822; 2325; 2530; 3040; 40+)
Q3. What is your ethnicity? (Hispanic/Latino; Native American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander; African American; Middle Eastern; White)
Q4. Is English your rst language? (Yes; No)
Q5. What is your major?
a
Q6. Which University do you attend? (Kent State Main Campus; Ashtabula; East Liverpool; Geauga Campus; Salem; Stark; Trumbull; Tuscarawas; Other)
Q7. What year are you in school? (Freshman; Sophomore; Junior; Senior)
Q8. What was your high school GPA (on the 4.0 scale)? (0.00.9; 1.01.9; 2.02.9; 3.03.5; 3.64.0)
Q9. What is your current college GPA? (0.00.9; 1.01.9; 2.02.9; 3.03.5; 3.64.0; First Semester, do not have one yet)
Classroom Lectures
Instructions: The next few questions pertain only to lectures you attend in a classroom in-person. As you answer the following questions, consider how you
take notes while in a classroom.
Q10. Do you take notes during in-class lectures? (Yes; No)
Q11. Do you take notes in some lecture classes but not others? (Yes. Please Explain; No)
Q12. Do you feel that taking notes during in-class lectures is necessary for eective learning? (Yes; No)
Q13. Do you audio record lectures? (Yes; No)
Q14. If yes, do you take written notes as well as audio recording? (Yes; No)
The following questions were only presented if participants selected Yes on Q10
Q15. What do you use to take notes?
b
(Notebook or loose-leaf paper (i.e., handwrite notes); Laptop; Tablet (e.g., Apple iPad, Amazon Fire, Samsung Galaxy
Tab); eWriter that is specic for writing (e.g. Boogie Board Sync); Other. Please Explain)
Q16. If you selected more than one note-taking device, please explain.
a
Q17. If you use a tablet to take notes, do you use a note-taking app? (Yes; No)
Q18. If yes, what app do you use?
a
Q19. As you are writing, do you try to organise your notes, or do you copy what the teacher says? (I take organised Notes; I copy what the teacher says;
Depends. Please Explain)
Q20. If you organise your notes, how do you do so?
b
(Rephrase into my own words; Create a bulleted list or outline; Cornell notes; Mapping; Other. Please
Explain)
Q21. Do you take notes dierently depending on the class? (Yes; No)
Q22. If yes, how so?
a
Q23. Do you take more notes when you are in a smaller class where the teacher is likely to see you? (Yes; No)
Q24. Besides in-class lectures, what else do you take notes on?
b
(Textbook readings; Other class readings; In-class activities; Class videos; Other. Please Explain)
Online Classes
Instructions: The next few questions pertain to online courses. As you answer the following questions, consider how you take notes in an online course. This
includes ipped courses where some of the content is in-class and some is online. However, only answer for the portion of the class that is online.
Q25. Are you currently enrolled in a class where most or all lectures are online? (Yes; No)
The Next questions were only presented if participants selected Yes on Q25
Q26. While viewing a lecture online, do you take notes? (Yes; No)
Q27. If no, why not?
a
Q28. Do you feel that taking notes during online lectures is necessary for eective learning in online courses? (Yes; No)
Q29. Do you feel that reviewing your notes is necessary for eective learning in online courses? (Yes; No)
The following questions were only presented if participants selected Yes on Q26
Q30. What do you use to take notes when viewing a lecture online?
b
(Notebook or loose-leaf paper (i.e., handwrite notes); Laptop; Tablet (e.g., Apple iPad,
Amazon Fire, Samsung Galaxy Tab); eWriter that is specic for writing (e.g. Boogie Board Sync); Other. Please Explain)
Q31. If you use a tablet to take notes, do you use a note-taking app? (Yes; No)
Q32. If yes, what app do you use?
a
Q33. While taking notes during an online lecture, do you try to organise your notes, or do you just copy what the teacher says? (I take organised Notes; I copy
what the teacher says; Depends. Please Explain)
Q34. If you take organised notes, how do you organise your notes?
b
(Rephrase into my own words; Create a bulleted list or outline; Cornell notes; Mapping;
Other. Please Explain)
Q35. Besides during online lectures, what else do you take notes on?
b
(Textbook readings; Other class readings; Online demonstrations; Other videos, not
lectures by the teacher; Websites; Other. Please explain)
Appendix
Instructions and all survey questions
12 K. MOREHEAD ET AL.
General Note-taking
Instructions: The following questions pertain to note-taking in general. For the next questions, please consider how you take notes in general regardless of
whether your classes are in-person or online.
Q36. Do your professors provide PowerPoint slides? (Yes; No; Some do. Please Explain)
The next two questions were presented if participants did not select No to Q36.
Q37. Do you take notes dierently when PowerPoint slides are made available? (Yes, I take notes on the handouts; Yes, I do not take notes; No)
Q38. Do you take the same amount of notes when PowerPoint slides are made available? (Yes; No, I take less notes; No, I take more notes)
Q39. Have you heard of Cornell notes? (Yes; No)
Q40. Do you take good notes? (Yes; No)
Q41. If you take notes, why do you take notes?
b
(To aid Learning; Because it is expected; Because the teacher can see me; It helps me learn by writing as the
teacher is speaking; So I can review them later; Because I have to take exams; So I pay attention during the lecture; Other. Please Explain; I donot take notes)
Instructions and All Survey Questions (continued)
Q42. Do you review your notes? (Yes; No)
Q43. If yes, how do you review your notes?
b
(Rereading; Highlight or mark them; Add questions; Make ashcards from notes; Summarise notes; Test myself on
them; Copy them from memory; Other. Please explain)
Q44. Were note-taking skills taught to you? (Yes; No)
The next three questions were only presented if participants selected Yes on Q44
Q45. When were they taught?
b
(Elementary school; Middle school; High school; Community college; College; Other. Please explain)
Q46. Who taught you note-taking skills?
b
(Teacher; Professor; Parent or Guardian; Other. Please explain)
Q47. For how long were you taught note-taking skills?
b
(Part of a class period; An entire class period; A few class periods; A month; A semester)
Q48. Do you wish you have better note-taking skills? (Yes; No)
The following question was only asked of students at the Main Campus
Q49. Are you in the 1st year experience course? (Yes; No)
Q50. If yes, do you have learning modules? (Yes; No)
Questions Taken Directly from Prior Research
Instructions: The next questions are a series of statements. For each statement, decide if it is true of you. If it is, select true. If not, select false.
The response options for the following questions are True or False.
Q51. I often doodle instead of taking notes.
Q52. I am often on the internet or playing games instead of taking notes.
Q53. I sometimes nd my note-taking interferes with my immediate understanding of the lecture.
Q54. If I did not have to take exams, I would not take notes.
Q55. I take notes so that I will note have to read the textbook.
Note.
a
Response was open-ended.
b
Participants could select more than one answer.
MEMORY 13
... Laptop note-takers often become verbatim note-takers. (Luo et al., 2018;Morehead et al., 2019) ...
... Studies have consistently shown that students using laptops for note-taking are more susceptible to distractions (Luo et al., 2018). The ease of typing can lead to verbatim transcription; a passive learning strategy that creates a false sense of comprehension without encouraging deeper processing (Morehead et al., 2019). Furthermore, research indicates that the act of writing itself promotes cognitive engagement with the material. ...
... While the medium of note-taking (handwritten vs. digital) may have some influence, research suggests that the processing of information is more critical. Morehead et al. (2019) highlight the importance of "encoding" information -actively transforming it into one's own understanding. Luo et al. (2018) found that longhand note-taking encourages a "generative" approach, leading to paraphrasing and visual aids. ...
Research
Full-text available
Higher education students often struggle with effective note-taking, getting distracted on laptops, missing key points, or just transcribing lectures without understanding. This inefficiency and technostress hinder their learning and exam preparation. Glean addresses these issues by converting lecture speech into text and combining it with students' notes and related materials in an organized online space. By making it easier for students to manage and utilize comprehensive documentation of lectures, Glean enables a wider diversity of students to benefit from higher education, ultimately reducing course non-completion rates. This report presents ESSA Evidence for the research base of Glean for Level 4 or IV, Demonstrates a Rationale, including a logic model and literature review that connects academic research studies to features in the product that support learning outcomes.
... Sve veća upotreba digitalnih uređaja i aplikacija za vođenje beležaka u nastavnom procesu menja način na koji studenti vode beleške i obrađuju informacije tokom predavanja. Uz to, internet je doveo i do razvoja onlajn kurseva, na kojima su studenti u prilici da prisustvuju predavanjima bez fizičkog boravka u učionici (Morehead et al., 2019;Stacy & Cain, 2015). Takve promene navele su istraživače da usmere pažnju na to da li i na koji način studenti menjaju svoje navike u vezi s vođenjem beležaka, kao i na to kako se takve promene odražavaju na ishode učenja. ...
... Dok su ranija istraživanja bila usmerena na tradicionalni pristup vođenju beležaka uz pomoć olovke i papira (npr. Badger et al., 2001), sve je veći broj istraživanja u kojima se vođenje beležaka dovodi u vezu s upotrebom digitalnih uređaja i aplikacija (Artz et al., 2020;Luo et al., 2018;Morehead et al., 2019;Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014;Stacy & Cain, 2015;Witherby & Tauber, 2019). ...
... S obzirom na cilj istraživanja, u nastavku rada biće predstavljeno nekoliko istraživanja u čijem je fokusu stil vođenja beležaka, to jest, način na koji studenti vode beleškeposredstvom pisanja ili digitalnih uređaja. Jedno takvo istraživanje realizovano je u SAD-u (Morehead et al., 2019) sa ciljem sticanja uvida u navike studenata u vezi s vođenjem beležaka. Na uzorku od 577 studenata ustanovljeno je da čak 96 odsto studenata vodi beleške na predavanjima, pri čemu znatno veći broj studenata navodi korišćenje olovke i papira u odnosu na digitalne uređaje, a zanimljiv je i nalaz da svega 49 odsto studenata izveštava o vođenju beležaka kada je reč o onlajn predavanjima. ...
Article
The development of digital technologies has led to new opportunities in higher education teaching, which, among other things, relate to the way of taking notes. Starting from the premise that note-taking is an important academic activity that enhances the learning process and outcomes, we were interested in what importance students attach to note-taking, as well as in what way the use of technology in the teaching process influences the way notes are taken. Accordingly, the aim of the research was to gain insight into students' perceptions and practices regarding note-taking in analogue and digital environments. In accordance with this, qualitative research was carried out with students, using the technique of in-depth interviews. The research sample consisted of 14 students of various scientific and artistic disciplines at the University of Novi Sad. Based on the set goal and the analyzed transcripts, the participants' answers were grouped into three categories: taking notes during lectures - analogue and digital environments; way of taking notes during lectures - analogue and digital environments; the meanings that students attribute to note-taking. In conclusion, it is emphasized that most of the research participants take notes, giving them different meanings, which speak in favor of their importance in the context of learning. Although the application of technology has a significant impact on note-taking, the majority of research participants still takes notes in the traditional way. An interesting finding is that in some cases the digital environment can lead to reduced motivation to take notes. Nevertheless, based on the obtained results, it is not possible to make generalizations. In order to gain a deeper insight into students' perceptions and practices regarding note-taking and to formulate specific guidelines for educational practice, further research is needed.
... Electronic notetaking, defined as "the act of using Microsoft and related Office software to take notes in electronic devices" [1] has gradually become a part of people's learning lives. Many students tend to type notes on computers instead of taking notes by hand [2,3]. Therefore, what impact the change in notetaking media will have on student learning has become an urgent question to answer. ...
... Regardless of notetaking medium, however, participants failed to record most of the ideas presented during the lesson on average, recording just 35% of lesson ideas, and 20% of those noted ideas were partial notes [21]. Despite the speed advantage of typing notes, computer-using notetakers still record fewer than half of the ideas presented during lectures [2,9,22]. As Morehead points out, most college students are not sufficiently trained in the use of electronic notetaking [2]. ...
... Despite the speed advantage of typing notes, computer-using notetakers still record fewer than half of the ideas presented during lectures [2,9,22]. As Morehead points out, most college students are not sufficiently trained in the use of electronic notetaking [2]. However, there is no doubt that electronic notetaking as a technology requires adequate training. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study systematically probed the relationship between the medium of taking classroom notes (virtual variable, electronic notetaking = 0 vs. traditional notetaking = 1), the word count in each medium, as well as the review process, and the students’ delayed learning effect for each notetaking approach. Data were collected from 189 college students, with the influence of gender and prior knowledge being controlled. The conclusions were as follows. (1) The notetaking medium was positively correlated with delayed test scores, irrespective of whether reviews were allowed or not. (2) The mediating role of word count between notetaking medium and delayed test scores was moderated by review. That is, when reviews were allowed, a significant correlation was found between the medium of the notes and the delayed test scores; when reviews were not allowed, the mediating effect of word count was not significant.
... Note-taking merupakan keterampilan pokok yang esensial dalam kegiatan akademis selama beberapa dekade hingga sekarang karena dengan penerapan strategi note-taking yang efektif, seseorang terampil dalam menyimak dan memahami isi teks yang dibaca atau didengarkan (Ngwoke et al., 2022). Hal ini diperkuat dengan pernyataan beberapa ahli dari berbagai disiplin ilmu yang menjelaskan bahwa note-taking adalah keterampilan belajar utama yang digunakan para siswa saat belajar di kelas (Morehead et al., 2019a;(Kiewra, 2002;Hartley & Marshall, 1974). Membuat catatan membantu siswa untuk mengatur informasi dan mengidentifikasi konsep inti yang bermanfaat untuk menyimpan informasi untuk jangka panjang (Piolat et al, 2005). ...
... Meskipun sebagian besar para siswa tidak pernah dilatih secara formal untuk melakukan note-taking (Morehead et al., 2019a), hampir semua dari mereka secara spontan membuat catatan selama belajar ( (Morehead et al., 2019b); (Palmatier & Bennett, 1974); (Williams & Eggert, 2002). Maka, berdasarkan analisis pentingnya keterampilan note-taking di atas, pelatihan keterampilan note-taking perlu diperkenalkan secara sistematis kepada siswa melalui kegiatan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (PkM). ...
Article
Full-text available
Kegiatan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (PkM) ini bertujuan untuk melatih siswa kelas XI Sekolah Menengah Atas Swasta Al-Mahdaliyah Kota Jambi dalam melakukan note-taking secara konvensional dan digital. Note- taking konvensional berarti mencatat menggunakan kertas dan pena, sedangkan note-taking digital adalah mencatat dengan menggunakan aplikasi pada gawai. Dengan memberikan pelatihan keterampilan note-taking yang efektif diharapkan dapat membantu siswa mengembangkan keterampilan mencatat untuk meningkatkan kinerja akademik mereka, tidak mudah lupa pada pelajaran, dan mengembangkan critical thinking (karena bisa menganalisis informasi dan mengaplikasikannya dalam buku catatan). Selain itu, siswa bisa berlatih mengembangkan teknik note-taking mereka sendiri agar menjadi lebih efektif. Metode yang diberikan dalam kegiatan PkM adalah pelatihan, modelling, dan tindak lanjut berupa pengimplementasian note-taking dalam pembelajaran. Kemudian, angket refleksi kegiatan diisi siswa setelah pemberian materi dan praktik. Hasil analisis kualitatif pada data angket tersebut menunjukkan bahwa siswa memilik persepsi yang positif terhadap materi pelatihan note-taking dan mulai mengenal teknik note-taking secara digital. Mayoritas siswa mengatakan akan menggunakan teknik yang diajarkan untuk membuat catatan dalam pembelajaran yang mereka lakukan.
... Taking notes can involve comprehension, selection, organisation, and production -activities that help students to move information from short-term to long-term memory (Gourley 2021) and create a form of external memory (Piolat, Olive & Kellogg 2005). A large body of empirical work compares digital note taking with handwritten notes, mainly in the context of students writing lecture notes (Allen et al. 2020;Watkins et al. 2015;Morehead et al. 2019). One finding of this work is that verbatim note taking is associated with poorer academic performance than rephrasing material (Mueller & Oppenheimer 2014), so using copy-and-paste when making notes from digital sources may lead to text being only shallowly processed. ...
... Empirical studies of note taking typically focus on how the activity is carried out in the timelimited environment of the synchronous lecture where students are required to split their attention between listening to the educator, and representing what is being said. In this multitasking context, digital comes a poor second to handwriting (Allen et al. 2020;Watkins et al. 2015: Morehead et al. 2019. However, the experience of online students is different. ...
Article
Full-text available
The popularity of MOOCs and MOOC platforms prompted some universities to develop their first online courses, while others experimented with the format of existing online offerings. Despite the body of research identifying cognitive, metacognitive, and practical benefits of printed materials, there has been a shift towards an approach that privileges online resources, reducing opportunities to access resources offline or in printed form. Online courses can be produced more quickly and cheaply than those providing both printed and digital options. They can also benefit learners in a society that values digital skills and literacies. This paper, informed by the principles of universal design for learning (CAST 2018), asks ‘What are the benefits to students of offering downloadable/printable versions of online study materials and supporting offline study?’. It takes a phenomenological approach, exploring the experience of 100 postgraduate learners on an online course delivered on the FutureLearn platform. Data was extracted from a large dataset that included all the students’ course discussion postings (N = 17,158). Data analysis identified the importance of the online/offline divide and showed that, as students’ contexts change, the benefits and accessibility of online, offline and print versions shifts. Printed and digital materials support different ways of learning and can have an affective impact. These findings point to ways in which learning design, skills training, and technical changes might be used to increase the affordances of digital materials for learners.
... Se asume que cuando los estudiantes son capaces de emitir un juicio más preciso sobre su desempeño real, identifican lo que saben y lo que no saben; en consecuencia, pueden pp. 240-260 Relación entre los juicios metacognitivos y los niveles de representación en la enseñanza de la Química* Yesica Alejandra Marín-Giraldo / Oscar Eugenio Tamayo-Álzate N.º 93 244 utilizar de manera más eficiente sus recursos cognitivos para aprender (Dunlosky et al., 2019;; Gutierrez y Price, 2017; Montoya et al., 2021). Desde la perspectiva de la enseñanza, las habilidades metacognitivas desplegadas por los profesores inciden positivamente en los procesos de aprendizaje en los estudiantes (Alt y Raichel, 2020;Efklides, 2014;Sinatra y Pintrich, 2003;Veenman, 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
Comprender el papel de los juicios metacognitivos en la enseñanza de las ciencias puede aportar de manera importante a cualificar los procesos educativos. Presentamos algunas de las relaciones existentes entre dos categorías teóricas importantes en la educación: los juicios metacognitivos y la Enseñanza de la Química desde la perspectiva de los niveles de representación. La investigación se realizó con profesores en formación de un programa de licenciatura en Ciencias Naturales de una universidad pública colombiana, a través de un diseño de investigación cualitativo concretado en un estudio de caso único. Los principales resultados indican la necesidad de insistir en la formación de maestros en el campo de metacognitivo y su influencia en la cualificación en los procesos de Enseñanza de la Química.
... Self-regulation of learning, among other things, requires that students employ organized study methods such as notetaking [12,13,14]. Yet 49% of students reported NOT taking notes during online learning [15]. Furthermore, in a recent video published by The Higher Times Education (2020), Dr. Steven Mintz of the University of Austin stated that "roughly 70% don't complete the course readings." ...
... For instance, perhaps students who have better learning outcomes are those who selectively accelerate their lectures depending on their perceived level of familiarity (e.g., only speed up lectures with familiar or well-learned content). A student who is intent on mastering course material may also choose to engage in additional study activities (e.g., note-taking, rewatching lectures before test, self-testing) after initial learning (Kornell & Bjork, 2007;Morehead et al., 2019;Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Further studies will provide clarity on how students' metacognitive abilities and motivation impact studying behaviors with accelerated lectures. ...
Article
Full-text available
In the modern age, we often consume content at faster than its normal speed. Prior research suggests that watching lecture videos at speeds up to 2x does not significantly affect performance, but the mechanisms by which comprehension is preserved at faster playback speeds are not fully understood. Therefore, we sought to investigate whether there is an effect of speed when the content is audio only, varies in modality (audio-only, audio-visual) and content (textual, pictorial), or is accompanied by distractions. In four experiments, we found that: (1) increasing playback speed to 2.5x speed did not impair test performance (though we still do not advise exceeding 2x speed); (2) having a visual aspect (i.e., presentation slides, instructor images) to learning can be advantageous, especially when processing information at faster speeds; (3) there was a small benefit of receiving textual over pictorial presentations, and the effect did not vary by speed; (4) computer-based distractions (i.e., phone calls, text messages, email notifications) did not impact performance at 1x or 2x speed. Hence, students are more adept at learning at faster speeds than conventional wisdom would suggest, even with distractions present, demonstrating intact comprehension at double the natural speed of to-be-learned material. Furthermore, multimedia presentations can help mitigate the negative costs of accelerated speeds, especially when information is processed by separate working memory components (i.e., narration in the auditory channel, text or pictures in the visual channel), which reduces cognitive load.
Article
Full-text available
In this presentation, we examined the role note-taking can play as a gateway to knowledge transformation in the reading-to-write process and challenged an academic focus on the teaching of paraphrasing. Much research has been done into the role that note-taking plays in lectures (Morehead et al., 2019), the impact of longhand notes compared with digital (Allen et al., 2020) and student writing strategies (Wingate and Harper, 2021). Although notes play an important role in evidence-based writing, in both providing a clear record of a student’s reading and increasing encoding and engagement (Voyer et al., 2022), very little research directly addresses the impact of note-taking strategies in the reading-to-write process. This study builds on work done in educational psychology by Cuevas et al. (2016) examining writing beliefs. It aims to understand student approaches to evidence gathering and explore links between their current practices and their writing beliefs. Understanding current student practices and the link with epistemological beliefs will allow us, as learning developers, to more effectively create targeted activities and interventions to support student understanding and engagement with texts in the reading-to-write process. It will also provide a foundation for explicit discussion and reflection of student beliefs about the nature of reading and writing and the link between these beliefs and note-taking practices, encouraging students to see reading and writing as knowledge construction and, importantly, encouraging deeper cognitive engagement and learning. The study builds on work done in educational psychology by Cuevas et al. (2016) examining the link between writing beliefs and students’ ability to create argumentation and synthesis and attempts to answer the questions: (1) In the reading-to-write process, what common strategies are students using to record information from their reading? (2) What potential impacts do common practices have on learning, focus, source integration and academic integrity? (3) How are students’ epistemological beliefs about reading and writing reflected in their notetaking practices? (4) How do common practices impact students’ ability to transform knowledge and incorporate it into existing beliefs? Understanding current student practices and the link with epistemological beliefs will allow us, as learning developers, to more effectively create targeted activities and interventions to support student understanding and engagement with texts in the reading-to-write process. It will also provide a foundation for explicit discussion and reflection of student beliefs about the nature of reading and writing and the link between these beliefs and notetaking practices, encouraging students to see reading and writing as knowledge construction and, importantly, encouraging deeper cognitive engagement and learning.
Article
Lecture capture (LC) has been implemented globally to enhance accessible resources supporting academic success. Little is known about the effects of teaching students how to effectively use LC to augment learning. This correlational pilot study used a 14-item Likert-like survey to examine relationships between undergraduate LC viewing practices and final course grade. No statistically significant findings were identified between LC use and course grades. However, the mean course grade was 3.29% higher among students ( n = 32) who implemented and maintained effective LC strategies (M = 90.61, SD = 5.68) compared with those who did not ( n = 18). Six of the 14 LC survey items revealed significant positive correlations and two of the 14 LC survey items revealed significant inverse correlations. These findings could help educators prioritize teaching students how to effectively and efficiently use LC resources to enhance academic outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
Little research has examined the fruitfulness of flashcards for improving learning outcomes of authentic classroom material. In Experiment 1, across different content areas flashcards did not significantly increase performance on a final test relative to the free-study condition. Experiment 2 investigated whether providing conceptual flashcards would aid participants’ learning relative to detailed flashcards (the kind generated most frequently by participants). Conceptual flashcards produced superior short-answer test performance than detailed flashcards for less able learners (low structure builders) but not for more able learners (high structure builders). The limited benefits of flashcards appear to reflect several factors: the current sample of students generally recruited effective study strategies (in the free-study condition) and the preponderance of detailed flashcards in both textbook provided materials and student-generated flashcards. Consistent with the material-appropriate processing framework, detailed but not conceptual flashcards would be redundant with encoding normally invited by didactic materials.
Article
Full-text available
There has been a shift in college classrooms from students recording lecture notes using a longhand pencil-paper medium to using laptops. The present study investigated whether note-taking medium (laptop, longhand) influenced note taking and achievement when notes were recorded but not reviewed (note taking’s process function) and when notes were recorded and reviewed (note taking’s product function). One unique aspect of the study was determining how laptop and longhand note taking influence the recording of lecture images in notes and image-related achievement. Note-taking results showed that laptop note takers recorded more notes (idea units and words) and more verbatim lecture strings than did longhand note takers who, in turn, recorded more visual notes (signals and images) than did laptop note takers. Achievement results showed that when taking laptop notes, the process function of note taking was more beneficial than the product function of note taking (i.e., better image-related learning and similar text-related learning). When taking longhand notes, the product function of note taking was more beneficial than the process function of note taking (i.e., better text-related learning and similar image-related learning). Achievement findings suggest that the optimal note-taking medium depends on the nature of the lecture and whether notes are reviewed.
Article
Full-text available
General Audience Summary In order for students to do well on their course exams, they need to use effective study techniques. One such technique—testing oneself—has been consistently shown to enhance retention of to-be-learned material more than if one were to simply study that material. Recently, research has shown that the benefits of testing oneself are even larger if those tests are successful and repeated across multiple days. So, although we know that students should be using self-testing across multiple study sessions to do well on their exams, we do not know how students would do so. Thus, the present study examined students’ use of self-testing to learn course materials for a high-stakes exam across multiple learning sessions. In each session, students regulated their learning of the same key-concept definitions that were drawn from their course and could appear on their exam. For each of these concepts, students had the options to test, study, or judge the quality of a prior recall response. Students’ use of self-testing increased across sessions, and importantly, students successfully retrieved the concepts an impressive number of times across the sessions. Thus, when practicing across multiple sessions, students use self-testing extensively to prepare for a high-stakes exam.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefits and challenges using laptop computers (hereafter referred to as laptops) inside and outside higher education classrooms. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 156 university students (54 males, 102 females) enrolled in either education or communication studies. Benefits of using laptops in class were active note taking, particularly when instructors provided materials ahead of time, searching for academic resources, use of subject-specific software, communicating and sharing information with peers, and engaging with online interactive tools. Challenges of using laptops inside the class included surfing the web for personal reasons, social networking with peers and, to a lesser extent, entertainment in the form of watching video podcasts or playing games. Benefits were reported far more often than challenges inside the classroom. Benefits of using laptops outside of class included collaboration with peers, increased productivity, and conducting research. Challenges of using laptops outside of class included surfing the web for personal reasons, social networking, and entertainment. Benefits and challenges were reported equally often outside the classroom. More research needs to be conducted on the extent to which distractions impede learning and productivity inside and outside the class. Cette étude avait pour but d’examiner les avantages et les défis associés à l'utilisation d’ordinateurs portables à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur des salles de classe d’enseignement supérieur. Des données quantitatives et qualitatives ont été recueillies auprès de 156 étudiants universitaires (54 hommes, 102 femmes) inscrits dans des programmes d’éducation ou de communication. Les avantages de l'utilisation d’ordinateurs portables en classe incluaient la prise active de notes, en particulier lorsque les instructeurs fournissaient la documentation à l'avance, la recherche de ressources universitaires, l'utilisation de logiciels spécifiques, la communication et le partage d’informations entre pairs, ainsi que l’utilisation active d’outils interactifs en ligne. Les défis incluaient le fait que les étudiants naviguent sur le web pour des raisons personnelles, utilisent les réseaux sociaux avec des pairs et, dans une moindre mesure, se divertissent en regardant des podcasts ou en jouant à des jeux vidéo. Les avantages ont été beaucoup plus souvent signalés que les défis. Les bénéfices de l'utilisation d’ordinateurs portables en dehors des cours incluaient la collaboration entre les pairs, une productivité accrue et la recherche en ligne. Les défis de l'utilisation d’ordinateurs portables en dehors des cours comprennent le fait que les étudiants naviguent sur le web pour des raisons personnelles, utilisent les réseaux sociaux et se divertissent. Dans le cas de l’utilisation des portables en dehors des salles de classe, les avantages et défis ont été signalés de manière égale. Des recherches supplémentaires doivent être menées pour déterminer dans quelle mesure les distractions entravent l'apprentissage et la productivité à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur de la salle de classe.
Article
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education - edited by John Dunlosky February 2019
Article
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Academic performance during the first two years of medical school is an important predictor of success on the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1. Research is lacking into what study methods successful students use, with success being defined as achieving a grade point average of above 90% in all or in most of the courses in the preclinical years.This study sought to identify specific study habits that successful students use and to demonstrate an association between preclinical grades and Step 1 scores. In this study, an anonymous survey was sent to first, second, and third year medical students that included various questions about their study habits, as well as their course grades (A, B, C, or fail) and, if applicable, their Step 1 score. Results demonstrated statistically significant differences existed between Step 1 scores and grades in the second year of medical school, with A students earning higher scores. A students tended to attend class, limit use of online lectures, study for 6-8 hours a day, and review lectures the same day they were given significantly more than B and C students did. This study demonstrates that certain study habits are employed consistently by successful students. These study habits should be shared with medical students early in the preclinical years to help students reach maximum potential both in class and on Step 1, which in turn will allow students to match into their choice of residency.
Article
We present findings from a study that prohibited computer devices in randomly selected classrooms of an introductory economics course at the United States Military Academy. Average final exam scores among students assigned to classrooms that allowed computers were 0.18 standard deviations lower than exam scores of students in classrooms that prohibited computers. Through the use of two separate treatment arms, we uncover evidence that this negative effect occurs in classrooms where laptops and tablets are permitted without restriction and in classrooms where students are only permitted to use tablets that must remain flat on the desk.
Article
Teacher education students were questioned about the purposes they established for use of lecture notes and their use of lecture notes was observed following the presentation of a short lecture. The students also completed a test on the lecture material. The purposes students established for their lecture notes covered a wide range of study and practical tasks. Notes were reported to be most commonly used for essay writing, which was the most common form of assessment for these students. The most frequent strategy students used for reviewing of lecture notes was some form of repetition. Less common was the use of complex elaborative procedures that involved generation of links among different components of the lecture notes, or between the new material and the students' existing knowledge. Concerns are raised about the state of the students' metacognitive knowledge about lecture-note review and about the need to include such knowledge in university courses.