Previous research on graphic organizer (GO) note taking has shown that this method is most effective when the GO is presented to the student partially complete with provided notes. This study extended prior research by investigating the effects of provided note type (summary vs. verbatim) and GO bite size (large vs. small) on the transfer performance and note taking behavior of college students working with a set of partially complete computer-based GOs. As hypothesized, a note-type by bite size interaction occurred on transfer performance. Large-bites GOs were optimal when containing summary notes, but not when containing verbatim notes. In contrast, small-bites GOs were optimal when containing verbatim notes, but not summary notes. Additionally, the type of notes provided to students affected the quality of their notes taken. The findings are explained from the perspective of cognitive load theory and the map shock hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmelD., & ShrockS. A. (1996). The effects of required and optional computer-based note taking on achievement and instructional completion time. Journal of Educational Computing Research14(4), 329–344.
2.
BlankenshipJ., & DansereauD. F. (2000). The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 293–308.
3.
CrooksS. M., & KatayamaA. D. (2002). Effects of study note format on the comprehension of electronic text. Research in the Schools, 9, 21–32.
4.
CrooksS. M.VerdiM. P., & WhiteD. R. (2005). Effects of contiguity and feature animation in computer-based geography instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 261–283.
5.
CrooksS. M.WhiteD. R.SrinivasanS., & WangQ. (in press). Temporal, but not spatial, contiguity while studying an interactive geographic map.
6.
DiVestaF. J., & GrayG. S. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14.
7.
HartleyJ. (1983). Notetaking research: Resetting the scoreboard. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 36, 13–14.
8.
IgoL. B.BruningR. B., & McCruddenM. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students' copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103–116.
9.
IgoL. B.BruningR. B.McCruddenM., & KauffmanD. (2003). Infogather: A tool for gathering and organizing information from the Web. In BruningR.HornC., & PytlikZillingL. (Eds.), Web based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 57–77). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
10.
KatayamaA. D., & CrooksS. M. (2001). Examining the effects of notetaking format on achievement when students construct and study computerized notes. The Learning Assistance Review, 6, 5–23.
11.
KatayamaA. D., & CrooksS. M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(4), 293–312.
12.
KatayamaA. D., & RobinsonD. H. (2000). Getting students partially involved in notetaking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119–133.
13.
KauffmanD. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in Web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1&2), 139–161.
14.
KiewraK. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.
15.
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.
16.
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 Science, 18, 217–232.
17.
KiewraK. A.KauffmanD. F.RobinsonD. H.DuboisN. F., & StaleyR. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.
18.
KincaidJ. P.FishburneR. P.RogersR. L., & ChissomB. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.
19.
KobayashiK. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology30, 242–262.
20.
KoroghlanianC. M., & SullivanH. J. (2000). Audio and text density in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(2), 217–230.
21.
LahtinenV.LonkaK., & Lindblom-YlanneS. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies and the quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 13–24.
22.
LonkaK.Lindblom-YlanneS., & MauryS. (1994). The effect of study strategies on learning from text. Learning and Instruction, 4, 253–271.
23.
MayerR. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
24.
MayerR. E. (2001). Multimedia learning.New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MayerR. E., & AndersonR. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.
26.
MayerR. E., & AndersonR. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.
27.
MayerR. E.BoveW.BrymanA.MarsR., & TapangcoL. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.
28.
MayerR. E., & ChandlerP. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.
29.
MayerR. E.HeiserJ., & LonnS. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.
30.
MayerR. E., & MorenoR. (1998). A split attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.
31.
MayerR. E., & MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
32.
MayerR. E.MorenoR.BoireM., & VaggeS. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.
33.
MayerR. E., & SimsV. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 389–401.
34.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
35.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117–125.
36.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.
QuadeA. M. (1995). A comparison of on-line and traditional paper and pencil notetaking methods during computer-delivered instruction. Proceedings of the Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, pp. 452–458.
39.
QuadeA. M. (1996). An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional pencil and paper and an on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 560–570.
40.
RederL. M., & AndersonJ. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121–134.
41.
RobinsonD. H.CorlissS. B.BushA. M.BeraS. J., & TomberlinT. (2003). Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites?Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 25–41.
42.
RobinsonD. H.KatayamaA. D.OdomS.BethA.HsiehY. P., & VanderveenA. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note-taking using a partial graphic organizer task. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 103–111.
43.
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.
44.
RobinsonD. H., & SchrawG. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399–415.
45.
RossS. M.MorrisonG. R., & O'DellJ. K. (1988). Obtaining more out of less text in CBI: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control strategy. Educational Communications Technology Journal, 36(3), 131–142.
46.
RyanM. T. (1982). Effects of paraphrase notetaking on prose learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1981. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(9–A), 3921 (UMI No. 820356).
47.
SlotteV., & LonkaK. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1–20.
48.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
49.
SwellerJ., & ChandlerP. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351–362.
50.
TraftonJ. G., & TrickettS. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 1–38.
51.
WiegmannD. A.DansereauD. F.McCaggE. C.ReweyK. L., & PitreU. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 136–155.
