This study examined notetaking by university-level English as a medium of instruction (EMI) students at different proficiency levels over a course of ten weeks. Ten Chinese graduate students participated in the study. The results showed that advanced students took higher quality notes and performed better academically than intermediate students. As for the use of language in taking notes, the intermediate students utilized more Chinese than English, while the reverse was true for the advanced students. With respect to generative and verbatim notetaking, the advanced students engaged more in the former and less in the latter compared to the intermediate students. Further, the advanced students and the intermediate students favored the pen and paper method and computerized notetaking, respectively. In contrast, the students all reviewed their notes after class. They also reported receiving no instruction on taking and reviewing/reorganizing notes. Based on these findings, implications are discussed.
AizawaIRoseHThompsonG, et al. (2020) Beyond the threshold: exploring English language proficiency, linguistic challenges, and academic language skills of Japanese students in an English medium instruction programme. Language Teaching Research27(4): 837–861.
2.
BogdanRCBiklenSK (1982) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
ButlerYG (2024) Self-assessment in second language learning. Language Teaching57: 42–56.
6.
CanhamACoumelMManolovaJ, et al. (2024) Note taking in bilingual students: Does using a first or second language influence note-taking quality and memory of newly learnt content?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism .
7.
ChenAMurphyDHBrabecJA, et al. (2024) The effects of lecture speed and note-taking on memory for educational material. Applied Cognitive Psychology38(1): e4166.
8.
ChengYL (2018) Unfamiliar accented English negatively affects EFL listening comprehension: it helps to be a more able accent mimic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research47(4): 899–911.
9.
ChengJMatthewsJ (2018) The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing35(1): 3–25.
DangTNYCoxheadAWebbS (2017) The academic spoken word list. Language Learning67(4): 959–997.
12.
DuffPA (2014) Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics34: 233–255.
13.
DunwoodieKMacaulayLNewmanA (2023) Qualitative interviewing in the field of work and organizational psychology: benefits, challenges and guidelines for researchers and reviewers. Applied Psychology72(2): 863–889.
14.
FaracoMBarbierMLPiolatA (2002) A comparison between notetaking in L1 and L2 by undergraduate students. In: RansdellSBarbierML (eds) New Directions for Research in L2 Writing. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 145–167.
15.
HiroseKSasakiM (1994) Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing3(3): 203–229.
16.
HumphriesSAubreySKingJ (2023) Fluctuations in Japanese English majors’ capacity to speak before, during and after studying abroad. System113: 103001.
JinZWebbS (2024) The effectiveness of note taking through exposure to L2 input: a meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition46(2): 404–426.
19.
KiewraKA (1985) Students’ note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology10(4): 378–386.
20.
KiewraKA (1988) Cognitive aspects of autonomous note taking: control processes, learning strategies, and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist23(1): 39–56.
21.
KiewraKADuBoisNFChristianD, et al. (1991) Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology83(2): 240–245.
22.
KobayashiK (2005) What limits the encoding effect of note-taking?: a meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology30(2): 242–262.
23.
Larsen-FreemanD (2009) Adjusting expectations: the study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics30(4): 579–589.
24.
LeeKLeeH (2018) Korean graduate students’ self-perceptions of English skills and needs in an English-medium instruction context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development39(8): 715–728.
25.
LiD (2000) The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: a case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review57(1): 58–87.
26.
Lopera-OquendoCLipnevichAAMañezI (2024) Rating writing: comparison of holistic and analytic grading approaches in pre-service teachers. Learning and Instruction94: 101992.
27.
MoreheadKDunloskyJRawsonKA, et al. (2019) Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory27(6): 807–819.
28.
MuellerPAOppenheimerDM (2014) The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science25(6): 1159–1168.
29.
OckeyGJFrenchR (2016) From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics37(5): 693–715.
30.
PeverlySTWolfAD (2019) Note-taking. In: DunloskyJRawsonKA (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.320–355.
31.
RickardsJPFriedmanF (1978) The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology3(2): 136–143.
32.
RoseHMcKinleyJ (2022) May I see your credentials, please?: displays of pedagogical expertise by language teaching researchers. Modern Language Journal106(3): 528–546.
33.
SiegelJ (2021) Developing Notetaking Skills in a Second Language: Insights from Classroom Research. London: Routledge.
34.
SiegelJ (2023a) Pen and paper or computerized notetaking?: l2 English students’ views and habits. Computers and Education Open4: 100120.
35.
SiegelJ (2023b) Translanguaging options for note-taking in EAP and EMI. ELT Journal77(1): 42–51.
36.
SiegelJ (2024) From notes to writing: three students in focus. ELT Journal78(3): 297–307.
37.
SiegelJKusumotoY (2024) A cross-cultural investigation of L2 notetaking: student habits and perspectives. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development45(6): 1988–2004.
38.
SongM-Y (2012) Note-taking quality and performance on an L2 academic listening test. Language Testing29(1): 67–89.
39.
VanPattenB (2020) Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In: VanPattenBKeatingGDWulffS (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.105–127.
40.
WingroveP (2022) Academic lexical coverage in TED talks and academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes65(4): 79–94.
41.
ZhouSFungDThomasN (2023) Towards deeper learning in EMI lectures: the role of English proficiency and motivation in students’ deep processing of content knowledge. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development .
42.
ZhouXChenXWangZ (2024) The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching62(2): 775–806.
