No abstract

This experiment investigated three newly classified note-taking functions: encoding (take notes/ no review), encoding plus storage (take notes/review notes) and external storage (absent self from lecture/review borrowed notes), relative to three note-taking techniques (conventional, linear, matrix). Results pertaining to note-taking functions indicated that encoding plus storage was superior to encoding and to external storage for recall performance, and superior to encoding for synthesis performance. External storage was also superior to encoding for synthesis performance. Results pertaining to note-taking techniques indicated that matrix notes produced greater recall than conventional notes. Results were explained by variables relating to repetition, generative processing, the completeness of notes, and the potential of note-taking techniques to facilitate internal connections.

College students viewed a 19-min videotaped lecture and were not allowed to take notes. One week later, these students were provided with one of three different forms of study notes for review: a complete text, a linear outline, or a matrix. Students in a control group were given no notes and reviewed mentally. After review, all students completed three different performance tests. Results from all three tests indicated that reviewing any of the three forms of provided notes significantly raised performance beyond that of the no-notes control group. This finding confirmed the importance of the external storage function of note taking for various forms of provided notes. In addition, the outline and matrix notes generally produced higher recall performance than did the text notes, but only the matrix notes produced higher transfer performance than did the text notes. These differences were explained in relation to the forming of internal connections in memory.

previous research investigating the encoding. encoding-plus-storage, and external-storage fnncticns of note taking has failed to equate processing oppottunities among the groups. The present studies did so by having the encoding group take notes at two occasions without review, the encoding-plus-storage group take notes one time and review notes the next, and the external-storage group twice review a set of borrowed notes. Three forms of note taking were used: conventional, and note taking on skeletal and matrix frameworks.In both Experiment 1, involving lecture learning, and Experiment 2, involving text learning, an advantage was found for the encoding-plus-storage function on tests involving factual-recall and recognition performance but not on tests measuring higher-order perfommnce.With respect to note-taking forms, no advantage existed for any form when information was aquired fran lecture. When text material was used there was some advantage for conventional notes and a clear advantage for not taking notes at all, but instead twice reading the material. These findings were explained relative to observed note-taking behaviors, the opportunity for review, and the processing demands proposed by the combination of reading and note taking, particularly when notes must be classified into an existing framework.

No abstract