It is a methodological challenge to study students' review of their lecture notes. First, the quality of their notes may vary considerably. Second, students review their notes with little monitoring or feedback. A hypertext program monitored the lecture note review strategies of individuals and dyads following two lectures about tests and measurements. It noted which concepts students sought at what level of detail, which content themes they favored, and which relationships among topics they pursued. Dyads' strategies were more comprehensive than the individuals' and were more directed at extracting elaborative and hierarchically structured information. The study replicated earlier findings that students did not learn well from lectures. This study also demonstrated how computers may aid in data collection in educational settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GageN. L. and BerlinerD. C., Educational Psychology, Houghton Mifflin, Dallas, 1984.
2.
WoolfolkA. E., Educational Psychology, (4th Edition), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
3.
EinsteinG. O.MorrisJ., and SmithS., Note-taking, Individual Differences, and Memory for Lecture Information, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, pp. 522–532, 1985.
4.
FrankB. M., Effect of Field Independence/dependence and Study Technique on Learning from a Lecture, American Educational Research Journal, 21, pp. 669–678, 1984.
5.
KnightL. J. and McKelvieS. J., Effects of Attendance, Note-taking, and Review on Memory for a Lecture: Encoding vs. External Function of Notes, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, pp. 52–61, 1986.
6.
WalbaumS., Note Taking, Verbal Aptitude, and Listening Span: Factors Involved in Learning from Lectures, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1989.
7.
HartleyJ. and MarshallS., On Notes and Note-taking, Universities Quarterly, 28, pp. 225–235, 1974.
8.
BromageB. K. and MayerR. E., Quantitative and Qualitative Effects of Repetition on Learning from Technical Text, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 271–278, 1986.
9.
AndersonT. H. and ArmbrusterB. B., The Value of Taking Notes During Lectures, Technical Report No: 374, Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, 1986.
10.
KiewraK. A., A Review of Note-taking: The Encoding Storage Paradigm and Beyond, Educational Psychology Review, 1, pp. 147–172, 1989.
11.
HenkW. A. and StahlN. A., A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Note-taking on Learning from Lectures, paper presented to the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, 1985.
12.
ZimmermanB. J., Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview, Educational Psychologist, 25, pp. 3–17, 1990.
13.
BakerL. and BrownA. L., Metacognitive Skills and Reading, in Handbook of Reading Research, PearsonP. D. (ed.), pp. 353–394, Longman, New York, 1984.
14.
O'DonnellA. M. and DansereauD. F., Scripted Cooperation in Student Dyads: A Method for Analyzing and Enhancing Academic Learning and Performance, in Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, Hertz-LazarowitzRachel and MillerNorman (eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 120–141, 1992.
15.
JohnsonR. T.JohnsonD. W., and StanneM. B., Comparisons of Computer-assisted Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning, American Educational Research Journal, 23: 3, pp. 382–392, 1986.
16.
HallR. H.DansereauD. F.O'DonnellA. M., and SkaggsL. P., The Effects of Textual Errors in Dyadic and Individual Learning, Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, pp. 127–140, 1989.
17.
ShavelsonR. J., Some Aspects of the Correspondence between Content Structure and Cognitive Structure in Physics Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, pp. 225–234, 1972.
18.
GeeslinW. E. and ShavelsonR. J., Comparison of Content Structure and Cognitive Structure in High School Students' Learning of Probability, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 6, pp. 109–120, 1975.
19.
FoosP. W. and FisherR. P., Using Tests as Learning Opportunities, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 2, pp. 179–183, 1988.
20.
DansereauD. F. and HolleyC. D., Development and Evaluation of a Text Mapping Strategy, in Discourse Processing, FlammerA. and KintschW. (eds.), North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1982.
21.
HolleyC. D. and DansereauD. F., Spatial Learning Strategies, Academic Press, New York, 1984.
22.
LambiotteJ.DansereauD. F.CrossD. R., and ReynoldsS. B., Multi-relational Semantic Maps, Educational Psychological Review, 1, pp. 331–367, 1989.
23.
KellyA. E., SKEIM: Shell for Knowledge Engineering Instruction and Measurement, unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 1992.
24.
MasqudM., Effects of Personal Lecture Notes and Teacher Notes on Recall of University Students, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, pp. 289–294, 1980.
25.
LorchR. F., Text Signalling Devices and their Effects on Reading and Memory Processes, Educational Psychology Review, 1, pp. 209–234, 1989.
26.
ConklinJ., Hypertext: A Survey and Introduction, IEEE Computer, 20, pp. 17–41, 1987.
27.
YankelowichN.MeyerowitzN., and van DamA., Reading and Writing the Electronic Book, Computer, 18, pp. 15–30, 1985.
28.
NewellA. and SimonH. A., Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.
