This article describes a study of the use of a digital note-taking technology with high school students with specific learning disabilities. The goal of the project was to understand the degree to which this intervention has the potential to support students' note-taking skills, promote retention of material, and reduce cognitive effort during note taking. The authors offer recommendations for ways in which existing features and uses of this technology can be improved and enhanced. The findings of this research suggest that the use of digital pens can increase the quality of student notes and note-taking strategies. Based on this pilot study, the pens are recommended for use in particular types of course activities for students with language-based learning disabilities.
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. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
3.
Anderson-InmanL.QuinnC. K.HorneyM. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 461.
4.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
5.
BakerL.LombardiB. R. (1985). Students' lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12(1), 28–32. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1201_9
6.
BerlinerD. C. (1971). Aptitude-treatment interactions in two studies of learning from lecture instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y.
7.
BlackhurstA. E. (2005). Perspectives on applications of technology in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 175–178.
8.
BooneR.HigginsK. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135–140.
9.
BoyleJ. R.WeishaarM. (2001). The effects of strategic notetaking on the recall and comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 133–141. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00014
10.
BrothertonJ. A.AbowdG. D. (2004). Lessons learned from eClass: Assessing automated capture and access in the classroom. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11, 121–155. doi:10.1145/1005361.1005362
11.
BulgrenJ. (1988). Effectivenss of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 3–17.
12.
BrünkenR.PlassJ. L.LeutnerD. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.
13.
CarboM. (2005). What principals need to know about reading instruction. Principal, 85(1), 46–49.
14.
CarrettiB.BorellaE.CornoldiC.De beniR. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 246–251.
15.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8, 293–332.
16.
ChaoP.-Y.ChenG.-D.ChangC.-W. (2010). Developing a cross-media system to facilitate question-driven digital annotations on paper textbooks. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 38–49.
17.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
18.
EdyburnD. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 146–152.
19.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V.OkoloC. M.ShanklandR. K.MoxleyK. D.CourtadC. A. (2009). The learning-to-learn strategies of adolescent students with disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(3), 147–161. doi:10.1177/1534508408318804
20.
EnglertC. S.DunsmoreK.CollingsY.WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. 30, 9–29.
21.
FaberJ. E.MorrisJ. D.LiebermanM. G. (2000). The effect of note taking on ninth grade students' comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21(3), 257–270.
22.
FisherD.FreyN.LappD. (2009). Meeting AYP in a high-need school: A formative experiment. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 386–396.
23.
GettingerM.SeibertJ. K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychology Review, 31, 350–365.
24.
HadwinA. F.WinneP. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2–3), 313–334. doi:10.1076/edre.7.2.313.3868
25.
HassanbeigiA.AskariJ.NakhjavaniM.ShirkhodaS.BarzegarK.MozayyanM. R. (2011). The relationship between study skills and academic performance of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1416–1424.
26.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL.Terrazas-ArellanesF. L.SchulteW.MundorfJ.WisemanS. (2009). Exploring the effects of digital note taking on student comprehension of science texts. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 45.
27.
HughesC. A.SuritskyS. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20–24. doi:10.1177/002221949402700105
28.
HwangW.-Y.WangC.-Y.SharplesM. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48, 680–699. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.020
29.
BelsonS. Irvine (2003). Integrating technology into special education. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
30.
JacobsK. (2008). A comparison of two note taking methods in a secondary english classroom. Proceedings of the 4th Annual GRASP Symposium. Wichita, KA: Wichita State University.
31.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 289–298.
32.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33–44. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(88)90004-5
33.
KonradM.JosephL. M.EveleighE. (2009). A meta-analytic review of guided notes. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 421–444.
34.
LaitusisC. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 153–167.
35.
LindstromJ. H. (2007). Determining appropriate accommodations for postsecondary students with reading and written expression disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 229–236.
36.
MatherN.GoldsteinS. (2008). Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors: A guide to intervention and classroom management (2nd ed.). Baltimore MD: Brookes.
37.
MayerR. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock's enduring contributions to the science of learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 46–50. doi:10.1080/00461520903433547
38.
PassF.TuovinenJ. E.TabbersH.Van GervenP. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.
39.
PaukW. (1962). How to study in college. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
40.
PerryJ.BeyerS. (2009). The impact on objective quality of life outcomes of assistive technology in residential services for people with learning disabilities. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(1), 5–14.
41.
RaskindM. (1993). Assistive technology and adults with learning disabilities: A blueprint for exploration and advancement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 185–196.
42.
RauP.-L.ChenS.-H.ChinY.-T. (2004). Developing web annotation tools for learners and instructors. Interacting with Computers, 16(2), 163–181. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2003.10.001
43.
RobinsonD. H.KatayamaA. D.BethA.OdomS.HsiehY. P.VanderveenA. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 103–111.
44.
SalomonG. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. In DerryS. J. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
ShaywitzS. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York, NY: Knopf.
46.
SiewertL. (2011). The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth grade students with learning challenges. Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 17.
47.
StraubE. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 625.
48.
SwansonH. L.JermanO. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274. doi:10.3102/00346543076002249
49.
SwellerJ. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
50.
TranT. A.LawsonM. J. (2001). Students' procedures for reviewing lecture notes. International Education Journal, 2(4), 278–293.
51.
WiseL. L. (2010). Accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities: Summary and conclusions. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 209–214. doi:10.1080/08957341003673849
