We examined longhand note taking strategies when reading and summarizing a source text that was formatted with bullets or that was presented in a single paragraph. We analyzed cognitive effort when reading the source text, when jotting notes, when reading the notes, and when composing the summary, as well as time spent in these activities and the content of the notes and the summaries. With a formatted text, students’ perceived comprehension difficulty was lower and they expended less cognitive effort, spent less time reading the text, and noted more ideas. While composing the summary, only those students who read the formatted source text continued selecting ideas in their notes. Finally, the summaries were unaffected by the formatting of the source text. The study shows that formatting a source text with bullets facilitates note taking by helping students to grasp its structure and by reducing the cognitive effort of reading.
BakerL.LombardiB. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.
2.
BarbierM. L.PiolatA.RousseyJ. Y.OliveT. (2006). Note-taking in second language: Language procedures and self-evaluation of the difficulties. Current Psychology Letters. Brain, Behavior and Cognition, 20, 3. Retrieved from http://cpl.revues.org/document1283
3.
BarbierM.-L.PiolatA.RousseyJ.-Y.RabyF. (2008). Notetaking and writing from hypertexts in L1 and L2: Cognitive effort and language procedures. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 31–50.
4.
BentonS. L.KiewraK. A.WhitfillJ. M.DennisonR. (1993). Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 267–280.
5.
DiCeccoV. M.GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–321.
6.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
7.
HaasC. (1990). Composing in technological contexts: A study of note-making. Written Communication, 7(4), 512–547.
8.
HaasC.HayesJ. R. (1986). “What did I just say?” Reading problems in writing with the machine. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 22–35.
9.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–28). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
IgoL. B.BruningR.McCruddenM. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students’ copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 103–116.
11.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
12.
KatayamaA. D.RobinsonD. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119–134.
13.
KelloggR. T.WhitefordA. P.TurnerC. E.CahillM.MertensA. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159–190.
14.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L.LewisL. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information processing ability. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14, 110–117.
15.
KimA.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118.
16.
KingA. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.
17.
KobayashiK. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.
18.
KobayashiK. (2006). Combined effects of note taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477.
Le BigotN.PasseraultJ.-M.OliveT. (2010). Le souvenir de la localisation des mots. L’Année Psychologique, 110, 321–346.
21.
LemariéJ.LorchR. F.EyrolleH.VirbelJ. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43, 27–48.
22.
LorchR. F.LorchE. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537–544.
23.
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.
24.
MeyerB. J. F. (1985). Signaling the structure of text. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), The technology of text (pp. 64–89). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
25.
MeyerB. J. F.PoonL. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
26.
MuellerP. A.OppenheimerD. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.
27.
NyeP. A.CrooksT. J.PowleyM.TrippG. (1984). Student note taking related to university examination performance. Higher Education, 13, 85–97.
28.
OliveT. (2004). Working memory in writing: Empirical evidences from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist, 9, 32–42.
29.
OliveT. (2012). Writing and working memory: A summary of theories and of findings. In GrigorenkoE.MambrinoE.PreissD. (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 125-140). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
30.
OliveT. (2014). Toward an incremental and cascading model of writing: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 173-194.
31.
OliveT.KelloggR. T.PiolatA. (2002). Studying text production with the triple task technique: Why and how? In OliveT.LevyC. M. (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31–58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
32.
OliveT.PasseraultJ.-M. (2012). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29, 326-344.
33.
PeverlyS. T.VekariaP. C.ReddingtonL. A.SumowskiJ. F.JohnsonK. R.RamsayC. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–126.
34.
PiolatA.OliveT.KelloggR. T. (2005). Cognitive effort of note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–22.
35.
PiolatA.OliveT.RousseyJ. Y.ThuninO.ZieglerJ. C. (1999). ScriptKell: A computer assisted tool for measuring the distribution of time and cognitive effort in writing and other complex cognitive activities. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 113–121.
36.
RobinsonD. H.KatayamaA. D.DuboisN. F.DevaneyT. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review in concept acquisition. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17–31.
37.
RobinsonD. H.KiewraK. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.
38.
SchmidS.BaccinoT. (2002). Perspective shift and text format: An eye-tracking study. Current Psychology Letters, Behaviour, Brain & Cognition, 9, 73–87.
39.
SchriverK. (1996). Dynamics in document design. New York, NY: John Wiley.
40.
TitsworthB. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students’ note taking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 283–297.
41.
WilliamsR. L.EggertA. (2002). Note taking predictors of test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 234–237.
