This study investigated the effects of text notes and voice notes on the comprehension of science texts by fifth grade students. The study was conducted to determine whether digital note taking was an effective reading strategy, and whether one form of digital note taking was more effective than the other. Results revealed that general education students made statistically significant gains for both science texts: Cells, and Heredity. For Cells, the voice notes group outperformed their text note peers at a level that was statistically significant. Special education students also made greater test gains using voice notes rather than text notes, and this difference was statistically significant for short-answer tests on Heredity. Additional analyses revealed diverse note taking strategies, which appeared consistent across media.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 1–7.
2.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In. ReinkingD.LabboL.McKennaM.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.
4.
Anderson-InmanL.Knox-QuinnC.HorneyM. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of Learning Disabilities29, 461–484.
5.
AshaK. J.HoppesM. K.XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139.
6.
BangertR. L.HurleyM. M.WilkinsonB. (Spring 2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.
7.
BarabS.SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
8.
BestR. M.RoweM.OzuruY.McNamaraD. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65–83.
9.
BretzsingB. B.KulhavyR. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145–153.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
11.
CoteN.GoldmanS. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children's think-aloud protocols. In van OostendorpH.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
DedeC. (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DurstR. K.NewellG. E. (1989). The uses of function: James Britton's category system and research on writing. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 375–394.
14.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1994). Verbal reports on thinking. In FaerchC.KasperG. (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
15.
Freedom Scientific. (2006). WYNN, Version 5.1. St. Petersburg, FL: Freedom Scientific.
16.
GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instructions on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58 (6), 508–509.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1994). The ElectroText project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(1), 71–91.
19.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1995). Hypermedia for readers with hearing impairments: Promoting literacy with electronic text enhancements. In HinchmanK.LeuD. J.KinzerC. K. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 448–458). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
20.
HorneyM.Anderson-InmanL. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties15(2), 127–168.
21.
KirklandM. R.SaundersM. A. P. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 105–119.
22.
LidenM.WittrockM. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17. 44–57.
23.
LongD. L.BourgT. (1996). Thinking-aloud: Telling a story about a story. Discourse Processes, 21, 329–339.
24.
MaglianoJ. P.MillisK. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis, Cognition & Instruction, 3, 251–283.
25.
MaglianoJ. P.TrabassoT.GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic processes during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629.
26.
MateosM.MartinE.VillalonR.LunaM. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21, 675–697.
McNamaraD. S.LevinsteinI. B.BoonthumC. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222–233.
29.
MuñozB.MaglianoJ. P.SheridanR.McNamaraD. S. (2006, May). Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: Implications for computer-based assessment and training tools. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 211–217.
30.
OzuruY.BestR.McNamaraD. S. (2004). Contribution of reading skill to learning from expository texts. In ForbusK.GentnerD.RegierT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1071–1076). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
SencibaughJ. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44, 6–22.
33.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
34.
SpiveyN. N. (1997). Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. The constructivist metaphor. San Diego: Academic Press.
35.
TrabassoT.MaglianoJ. P. (1996a). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255–287.
36.
TrabassoT.MaglianoJ. P. (1996b). How do children understand what they read and what can we do to help them? In GravesM.van den BroekP.TaylorB. (Eds.), The first R: A right of all children (pp. 160–188). New York: Columbia University Press.
37.
WhitneyP.BuddD. (1996). Think-aloud protocols and the study of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 341–351.
38.
ZwaanR. A.BrownC. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327.
