To be successful in inclusive classrooms, middle school students need effective note-taking skills to learn lecture content. Unfortunately, students with disabilities perform poorly at recording critical lecture content in notes and perform poorly on subsequent tests. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a note-taking technique, called strategic note-taking, on the note-taking and achievement of students with and without learning disabilities. The Results showed that students who were trained to use strategic note-taking performed better than students who used conventional note-taking on measures of immediate recall and comprehension. The limitations of the research and the implications for future research are discussed.
BoyleJ. (2010). Note-taking skills of middle school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 530–540. doi:10.1177/0022219410371679
2.
BoyleJ.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. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 125–133.
3.
BretzingB. H.KulhavyR. W.CaterinoL. C. (1987). Notetaking by junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 359–362.
4.
CawleyJ. F.HaydenS.CadeE.KroczynskiS. (2002). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423–435.
5.
CawleyJ.ParmarR. (2001). Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 105–125. doi:10.1080/105735601300007589
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DeSimoneJ.ParmarR. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 98–110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x
8.
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.
9.
DiVestaF. J.GrayG. S. (1972). 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.
10.
GansleK.NoellG.VanDerHeydenA.NaquinG.SliderN. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for CBM in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477–497.
11.
GomezK.MaddaC. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for ELL Latino students in the middle school science classroom. Voices from the Middle, 13, 42–47.
12.
GrahamS.WeintraubN.BerningerV. (1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 290–296.
13.
HamiltonS. L.SeibertM. A.GardnerR.Talbert-JohnsonC. (2000). Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21 (3), 133–170.
14.
Hamstra-BletzL.BloteA. (1990). Development of handwriting in primary school: A longitudinal study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 759–770.
15.
HarnissM.DicksonS.KinderD.HollenbeckK. (2001). Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies for enhancing learning from published history textbooks. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 127–150. doi:10.1080/105735601300007598
16.
HartleyJ.MarshallS. (1974). On notes and note-taking. Universities Quarterly, 28, 225–235.
17.
HughesC. A.SuritskyS. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20–24.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
19.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L.KimS.RischN.ChristensenM. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 112–127.
20.
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.
21.
LazarusB. D. (1993). Guided notes: Effects with secondary and post-secondary students with mild disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 272–289.
22.
LeeP.LanW.HammanD.HendricksB. (2007). The effects of teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students’ science learning. Instructional Science.
23.
LeeP.LanW.HammanD.HenricksB. (2008). The effects of teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students’ science learning. Instructional Science, 36, 191–201. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9027-4
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.
26.
McIntoshR.VaughnS.SchummJ. S.HaagerD.LeeO. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.
27.
MeadJ.PaigeM. (2008). Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley: An examination of its precedential impact. Journal of Law and Education, 37, 329–345.
28.
NewmanL. (2006). Facts from NLTS2: General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
29.
O’DonnellA.DansereauD. F. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 116–125.
30.
OlsonL. (2004, January8). Enveloping expectations [Special Issue: Special education in an era of standards: Count me in—Quality counts]. Education Week, 23, 8–26.
31.
PattersonK. (2005). Increasing positive outcomes for African American males in special education with the use of guided notes. Journal of Negro Education, 74, 311–320. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026731
32.
PearsonD.HiebertE.KamilM. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 282–296. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.4
33.
PeperR. J.MayerR. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
34.
PeverlyS. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_10
35.
PeverlyS.RamaswamyV.BrownC.SumowskiJ.AlidoostM.GarnerJ. (2007). What predicts skill in note-taking?Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167–180. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.167
PutnamM. L. (1992). Testing practices of mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 11–21.
38.
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.
39.
RischN.KiewraK. (1990). Content and form variations in note taking: Effects among junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 355–357.
40.
SackJ. L. (1998, March25). Side by side. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
41.
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. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(92)90070-F
42.
SchummJ.S.VaughnS. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18–27.
43.
SchummJ. S.VaughnS.HaagerD.McDowellJ.RothleinL.SaumellL. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect?Exceptional Children, 61, 335–352.
44.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.BerkeleyS.GraetzJ. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content?Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449. doi:10.1177/0741932508327465
45.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.McDuffieK. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
46.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM.OkoloC. (2008). Science and social studies for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–25.
47.
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.
48.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, Fourth Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
49.
TitsworthB. S. (2001a). Immediate and delayed effects of interest cues and engagement cues on students’ affective learning. Communication Studies, 52, 169–179. doi:10.1080/10510970109388552
50.
TitsworthB. S. (2001b). An experiment testing the effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283–297. doi:10.1080/03634520109379256
51.
TitsworthB. S. (2004). Students’ note-taking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 50, 283–297. doi:10.10/0363452032000305922
52.
TitsworthB. S.KiewraK. A. (2004). Organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001
53.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). 28th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
54.
VoglerK. (2006). Impact of a high school graduation examination on Tennessee science teachers’ instructional practices. American Secondary Education, 35, 35–57.
55.
WestJ.WhitbyP. (2008). Federal policy and the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–16.
56.
WolkomirR. (1995). Sitting in our stead: Crash test dummies. Smithsonian, 26, 31–41.
