We investigated the differences between (a) copying and pasting text versus typed note-taking methods of constructing study notes simultaneously with (b) vertically scaffolded versus horizontally scaffold notes on knowledge transfer. Forty-seven undergraduate educational psychology students participated. Materials included 2 electronic chapter-length texts, 2 sets of computerized study notes, 2 tests (fact and application), and an attitudinal survey. Only the application test revealed a significant main effect for notes format. We conclude that keying in notes leads to higher retention of knowledge transfer than copying and pasting notes after a 1-week delay.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. C.ArmbrusterB. B. (1985). Studying strategies and their implications for textbook design. In DuffyT. M.WallerR. (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 159–177). New York: Academic.
2.
BentonS. L.KiewraK. A.WhitfillJ. M.DennisonR. (1993). Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 267–280.
3.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
4.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
CrooksS. M.WhiteD. (2002). Study notes program: Macromedia Director 8 Shockwave Studio, educational version [Unpublished software program]. Lubbock: Texas Tech University.
6.
DreherM. J.GuthrieJ. T. (1990). Cognitive processes in textbook chapter search tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 323–339.
7.
GrahamT. A. (2001). Teaching child development via the Internet: Opportunities and pitfalls. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 67–71.
8.
GuthrieJ. T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178–199.
9.
HartmanD. H. (2002). Graphic organizers as a teaching strategy. Adolescent Learning & Development, 5, 1–8.
10.
IgoB.BruningR.McCruddenM. (2004, April). Exploring differences in students' copy-and-paste decision-making and processing: A mixed methods study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11.
KatayamaA. D.CrooksS. M. (2001). Examining the effects of notetaking format on achievement when students construct and study computerized notes. Learning Assistance Review Journal, 6, 5–23.
12.
KatayamaA. D.CrooksS. M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 293–312.
13.
KatayamaA. D.RobinsonD. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119–133.
14.
KiewraK. A. (1989). A review of note taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 147–172.
15.
MayerR. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49.
16.
MayerR. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240–246.
17.
NewlinM. H.WangA. Y. (2002). Integrating technology and pedagogy: Web instruction and seven principles of undergraduate education. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 325–330.
18.
RobinsonD. H.KatayamaA. D.DuboisN. F.DeVaneyT. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept acquisition. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17–31.
19.
RussellI. J.CarisT. N.HarrisG. D.HendricsonW. D. (1983). Effects of three types of lecture notes on medical student achievement. Journal of Medical Education, 58, 627–636.
20.
ShambaughR. N. (1999). The cognitive potentials of visual constructions. Journal of Visual Literacy, 15, 7–24.
21.
ShapiroA. M. (1998). Promoting active learning: The role of system structure in learning from hypertext. Human–Computer Interaction, 13, 1–35.
22.
WaschullS. B. (2001). The online delivery of psychology courses: Attrition, performance, and evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 143–147.
