While today's teachers use a variety of teaching methods in middle-school science classes, lectures and note-taking still comprise a major portion of students' class time. To be successful in these classes, middle-school students need effective listening and note-taking skills. Students with learning disabilities (LD) are poor note-takers, which negatively impacts their academic performance. This investigation sought to examine the effects of strategic note-taking on the recall and comprehension of middle-school students with LD. Forty students with LD were randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group. Using strategic note-taking, students in the experimental group were taught to record notes independently while viewing a videotaped science lecture. Students who were taught strategic note-taking scored significantly higher on measures of immediate free recall, long-term free recall, comprehension, and number of lecture points and words recorded in their notes than students in a control group who used conventional note-taking. The limitations of the research and implications of this technique for classroom application are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltemeierL.JonesJ.AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W. (2006). Executive functions in becoming writing-readers and reading-writers: Note-taking and report writing in third and fifth graders, Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 161–173.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
3.
BaddeleyA.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG. A. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.
4.
BaddeleyA.HitchG.AllenR. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 438–456.
5.
BerningerV.NielsenK.AbbottR.WijsmanE.RaskindW. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1–21.
6.
BerningerV.RaskindW.RichardsT.AbbottR.StockP. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 707–744.
7.
BoyleJ. R. (2009). Note-taking skills of middle-school students with and without learning disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
BoyleJ. R.WeishaarM. (2001). The effects of a strategic note-taking technique on the comprehension and long term recall of lecture information for high school students with LD. LD Research and Practice, 16 (3), 125–133.
9.
BretzingB. H.KulhavyR. W.CaterinoL. C. (1987). Notetaking by junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 359–362.
10.
BrownR. (2005). Seventh-graders' self-regulatory note-taking from text: Perceptions, preferences, and practices. Reading Research and Instruction, 44, 1–26.
11.
CawleyJ. F.HaydenS.CadeE.Baker-KrooczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
12.
CawleyJ.KahnH.TedescoA. (1989). Vocational education and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 630–634.
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
CowanN. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
CrawfordD. B.CarnineD. (2000). Comparing the effects of textbooks in eighth-grade U.S. history: Does conceptual organization of text help?Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 387–422.
16.
DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.BuiY.VernonS. (2006). High schools and adolescents with disabilities: Challenges at every turn. In DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
DeshlerD.SchumakerJ.LenzB.BulgrenJ.HockM.KnightJ.EhrenB. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 96–108.
18.
DiVestaF. J.GrayG. S. (1973). Listening and note-taking: II. Immediate and delayed recall as a function of variations in thematic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-review intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287.
19.
FisherJ. L.HarrisM. B. (1973). Effect of note-taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321–325.
20.
FulpS. L. (2002). 2000 National survey of science and mathematics education: Status of elementary science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
21.
GansleK. A.NoellG. H.VanDerHeydenA. M.NaquinG. M.SliderN. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477–497.
22.
GathercoleS. E.DurlingE.EvansM.JeffcockS.StoneS. (2007). Working memory deficits in laboratory analogues of activities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1019–1037.
23.
GathercoleS. E.LamontE.AllowayT. P. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In PickeringS.PhyeG. (Eds.), Working memory and education (pp. 219–240). New York: Academic Press.
24.
GerstenR.BakerS.Smith-JohnsonJ.DiminoJ.PetersenA. (2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle-school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 264–280.
25.
HarnissM.DicksonS.KinderD.HollenbeckK. (2001). Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies for enhancing learning from published history textbooks. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 127–150.
26.
HartleyJ.MarshallS. (1974). On notes and note-taking. Universities Quarterly, 28, 225–235.
27.
HowellK. W.NoletV. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
28.
HuberR. A.MooreC.J. (2002). High stakes testing and science learning assessment. Science Educator, 11, 18–23.
29.
HudsonS. B.McMahonK. C.OverstreetC. M. (2002). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Compendium of tables. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
30.
HughesC. A.SuritskyS. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20–24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law No. 108–446 (2004). Retrieved December 14, 2009, from http://idea.ed.gov.
33.
KerlingerF. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
34.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristianD.McShaneA.MeyerhofferM.RoskelleyD. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245.
35.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L.KimS.RischN.ChristensenM. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 172–187.
36.
KiewraK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristensenM.KimS.LindbergN. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instructional Sciences, 18, 217–232.
37.
KobayashiK. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.
38.
KnowltonE. K. (1983). Secondary teachers' expectations of learning disabled students (Research Report No. 75). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
39.
LaidlawE. N.SkokR. L.McLaughlinT. F. (1993). The effects of notetaking and self-questioning on quiz performance. Science Education, 77, 75–82.
40.
LazarusB. D. (1991). Guided notes, review, and achievement of secondary students with learning disabilities in mainstream content courses. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 112–127.
41.
LazarusB. D. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and post-secondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 272–289.
42.
LeeP.LanW.HammanD.HendricksB. (2008). The effects of teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students' science learning. Instructional Science, 36, 191–201.
43.
MaddoxH.HooleE. (1975). Performance decrement in the lecture. Educational Review, 1, 17–30.
44.
MarstonD. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford Press.
45.
MayerR. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371.
46.
MayerR. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760–769.
47.
McIntoshR.VaughnS.SchummJ. S.HaagerD.LeeO. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60 (3), 249–261.
48.
O'DonnellA.DansereauD. F. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 116–125.
49.
PattersonK. (2005). Increasing positive outcomes for African American males in special education with the use of guided notes. The Journal of Negro Education, 74, 311–320.
50.
PeperR. J.MayerR. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
51.
PeverlyS. T. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216.
52.
PeverlyS.RamaswamyV.BrownC.SumowskiJ.AlidoostM.GarnerJ. (2007). What predicts skill in note-taking?Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167–180.
53.
PutnamM. L.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. S. (1993). The investigation of setting demands: A missing link in learning strategy instruction. In MeltzerL. S. (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 325–354). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
54.
RickardsJ.FajenB.SullivanJ.GillespieG. (1997). Signaling, notetaking, and field Independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508–517.
55.
RischN.KiewraK. (1990). Content and form variations in note taking: Effects among junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 355–357.
56.
ScerboM. W.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N.GrashaA. F. (1992). The role of time and cuing in a college lecture. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 312–328.
57.
SchumakerJ.DeshlerD. (1984). Setting demand variables: A major factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topics in Language Disorders, 4, 22–40.
58.
SchummJ. S.VaughnS. (1991). Making adaptations for main-streamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18–27.
59.
SchummJ.VaughnS. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accommodating students with disabilities: Lessons learned. Remedial & Special Education, 16, 344–353.
60.
SchummJ. S.VaughnS.HaagerD.McDowellJ.RothleinL.SaumellL. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect?Exceptional Children, 61, 335–352.
61.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. (in press). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content?Remedial and Special Education.
62.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
63.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.OkoloC. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–25.
64.
SlotteV.LonkaK. (2001). Notetaking and essay writing. In RijlaarsdamG. (Series Ed.) & TynjalaP.MasonL.LonkaK. (Volume Eds.), Studies in writing, volume 7, Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 131–143). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
65.
SnyderM.BambaraL. (1997). Teaching secondary students with learning disabilities to self-manage classroom survival skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 534–543.
66.
SoukupJ.WehmeyerM.BashinskiS.BovairdJ. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 74, 101–120.
67.
StevensJ. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
68.
StringfellowJ. L.MillerS. P. (2005). Enhancing student performance in secondary classrooms while providing access to the general education curriculum using lecture formats. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 1, 2–16.
69.
SuritskyS. K. (1992). Notetaking approaches and specific areas of difficulty reported by university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10 (1), 3–10.
70.
SuritskyS. K.HughesC. A. (1996). Notetaking strategy instruction. In DeshlerD. D.EllisE. S.LenzB. K. (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 267–312). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
71.
SwansonH.ZhengX.JermanO. (2009). Working memory, short-term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 260–287.
72.
SweeneyW. J.EhrhardtA. M.GardnerR.JonesL.GreenfieldR.FribleyS. (1999). Using guided notes with academically at-risk high school students during a remedial summer social studies class. Psychology in the Schools36 (4), 305–315.
73.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, fourth edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
74.
TitsworthB. S. (2001a). Immediate and delayed effects of interest cues and engagement cues on students' affective learning. Communication Studies, 52, 169–179.
75.
TitsworthB. S. (2001b). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational cues, and students' notetaking on student learning. Communication Education, 53, 305–320.
76.
TitsworthB. S. (2004). Students' note-taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 50, 283–297.
77.
TitsworthB. S.KiewraK. A. (2004). Organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461.
78.
VaughnS.SchummJ.KouzekananiK. (1993). What do students with learning disabilities think when their general education teachers make adaptations?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 545–555.
79.
VoglerK. (2006). Impact of a high school graduation examination on Tennessee science teachers' instructional practices. American Secondary Education, 35, 35–57.
80.
Ward-LonerganJ. M.LiliesB. Z.AndersonA. M. (1998). Listening comprehension and recall abilities in adolescents with language learning disabilities and without disabilities for social studies lectures. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 1–32.
81.
Ward-LonerganJ. M.LiliesB. Z.AndersonA. M. (1999). Verbal retelling abilities in adolescents with language learning disabilities and without disabilities for social studies lectures. Journal of learning Disabilities, 32, 213–223.
82.
WechslerD. (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, third edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
83.
WechslerD. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II. New York: Psychological Corporation.
84.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fourth edition: American Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
