The Effects of Required and Optional Computer-Based Note Taking on Achievement and Instructional Completion Time

Abstract

This study investigated the effects on achievement and on instructional completion time of mandatory and optional note taking during a Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) lesson. Eighty-one undergraduate subjects participated. The required note-taking group had to enter notes on every screen of the HyperCard lesson before the instruction would advance. Subjects could see their notes during the instruction and were allowed to review their notes briefly before taking the post-test. An analysis of variance revealed that the required note-taking group scored significantly higher on the post-test and took significantly longer to complete the instruction than did the optional or control groups. Furthermore, the optional note-taking group scored significantly higher on the post-test and took significantly longer to complete the instruction than did the control group.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ladas

, Note Taking on Lectures: An Information Processing Approach, Educational Psychology, 15:1, pp. 44–53, 1980.

Carrier

C. A.

, Notetaking Research: Implications for the Classroom, Journal of Instructional Development, 6:3, pp. 19–26, 1983.

Hartley

Marshall

, On Notes and Note-Taking, University Quarterly, 28:1, pp. 225–235, 1974.

Reese

J. L.

, The Effects of Notetaking, Lecture Structure, and Ability Level on Performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2046A, University Microfilms No. 8423592, 1984.

Carter

J. F.

Van Matre

N. H.

, Note Taking versus Note Having, Journal of Educational Psychology, 67:6, pp. 900–904, 1975.

Kiewra

K. A.

, Investigating Notetaking and Review: A Depth of Processing Alternative, Educational Psychologist, 20:1, pp. 23–32, 1985.

Monty

M. L.

, Issues for Supporting Notetaking and Note Using in the Computer Environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3597B, University Microfilms No. 9033645, 1991.

Grubaugh

, Basic Microcomputer Notes: A Comprehensive Notetaking System for Computer Science Students, Collegiate Microcomputer, 3:1, pp. 13–18, 1985.

Wambaugh

R. J.

, The Effects of Computerized Notetaking on Achievement. Dissertations Abstracts International, 52, 2898A, University Microfilms No. 9204312, 1991.

10.

Hannafin

M. J.

Peck

K. L.

, The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software, Macmillan, New York, 1988.

11.

Belland

J. C.

, Is the Self-Paced Instructional Program, Via Microcomputer-Based Instruction, the Most Efficient Method of Assessing Individual Learning Differences? Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33:3, pp. 185–198, 1985.

12.

Gattiker

U. E.

, Computer Training and Time Efficiency: Assessing Ability and Gender Effects on Learning, (ERIC Document ED299952), 1988.

13.

Mayer

R. E.

, Problem-Solving Principles, in Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Fleming

Levie

W. H.

(eds.), Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 253–282, 1993.

14.

Dwyer

F. M.

, A Guide for Improving Visual Instruction, Learning Services, State College, Pennsylvania, 1972.

15.

Dwyer

F. M.

Lamberski

R. J.

, The Human Heart: Parts of the Heart, Circulation of Blood and Cycle of Blood Pressure, Learning Services, State College, Pennsylvania, 1980.

16.

Dwyer

F. M.

, Strategies for Improving Visual Learning, Learning Services, State College, Pennsylvania, 1978.

17.

Kiewra

K. A.

, Providing the Instructor's Notes: An Effective Addition to Student Notetaking, Educational Psychologist, 20:1, pp. 33–39, 1985.

18.

Ganske

, Note-Taking: A Significant and Integral Part of Learning Environments, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29:3, pp. 155–175, 1981.