Notetaking is the primary method used by secondary and postsecondary students with learning disabilities (LD) to acquire lecture information. The literature on notetaking was reviewed to obtain an empirical base for designing effective notetaking programming and identifying critical areas for future research. Results include the benefits of recording and reviewing notes as well as identification of listener- and lecturer-controlled variables that influence effective notetaking. Findings are discussed in relation to the learner characteristics of secondary and postsecondary LD students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH. S.TaylorL. (1986). An introduction to learning disabilities. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
2.
AikenE. G.ThomasG. S.ShennumW. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 430–444.
3.
AndersonT. H.ArmbrusterB. B. (1986). The value of taking notes (Reading Education Report No. 374). Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
4.
AnnisL. F. (1981). Effect of preference for assigned lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 178–182.
5.
BakerL.LombardiB. R. (1985). Students' lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.
6.
BarnettB. H.DiVestaF. D.RogozinskiJ. Y. (1981). What is learned in notetaking?Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 181–192.
7.
Beirne-SmithM.DeckM. D. (1989). A survey of postsecondary programs for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 456–457.
8.
BireleyM. K.LandersM. G.VernooyJ. A.SchlaerthP. (1986). The Wright State University Program: Implications of the first decade. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 2, 349–357.
9.
BlalockJ. (1981). Persistent problems and concerns of young adults with learning disabilities. In CruickshankW.SilverA. (Eds.), Bridges to tomorrow, Vol 2: The best of ACLD (pp. 35–55). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
10.
BretzingB. H.KulhavyR. W.CaterinoL. C. (1987). Notetaking by junior high students. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 359–362.
11.
BursuckW. D.RoseE.CowenS.YahayaM. A. (1989). Nationwide survey of postsecondary education services for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56, 236–245.
12.
CarlsonS. A.AlleyG. R. (1981). Performance and competence of learning disabled and high-achieving high school students on essential cognitive skills (Research Report No. 53). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
CarrierC. A.WilliamsM. D.DalgaardB. R. (1988). College students' perceptions of notetaking and their relationship to selected learner characteristics and course achievement. Research in Higher Education, 28, 223–239.
15.
CarterJ. F.VanMatreN. H. (1975). Notetaking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904.
16.
CeciS. J. (1982). Extracting memory from stimuli: Automatic and purposive processing of the language based learning disabled. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2 (2), 46–53.
17.
CermakL. S. (1983). Information processing deficits in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 599–605.
18.
CollingwoodV.HughesD. C. (1978). Effects of three types of university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 175–179.
19.
CraikF. I.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
20.
CrawfordC. C. (1925). The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282–291.
21.
CuthbertsonE. (1979). An analysis of secondary testing and grading proceduresUnpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas.
22.
DeckerT. W.PollowayE. A.DeckerB. B. (1985). Help for the LD college student. Academic Therapy, 20, 339–346.
23.
DiVestaF. D.GrayS. G. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14.
24.
DiVestaF. D.SmithD. A. (1979). The pausing principle: Increasing the efficiency of memory for ongoing events. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 278–287.
25.
EinsteinG. O.MorrisJ.SmithS. (1985). Notetaking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.
26.
FrankB. M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from a lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669–678.
27.
GajarA. H. (1986). Programming for the learning disabled: A program development and service delivery guide for university service providers, diagnosticians, tutors, counselors and learning disabled students. Columbus, OH: AHSSPPE.
28.
GanskeL. (1981). Note-taking: A significant and integral part of learning environments. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 29, 155–175.
29.
GreeneE. B. (1928). Lecture versus reading. Genetic Psychology, 4, 457–460.
30.
HallR. J. (1980). Cognitive behavior modification and information processing skills of exceptional children. Exceptional Children Quarterly, 1, 9–16.
31.
HallahanD. P.BryanT. H. (1981). Learning disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 141–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M.LloydJ. W. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
HallahanD. P.ReeveR. E. (1980). Selective attention and distractibility. In KeoghB. K. (Ed.), Advances in special education (Vol. 1, pp. 141–181). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
34.
HartleyJ.CameronA. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educational Review, 20, 30–37.
35.
HartleyJ.FullerH. (1971, August/September). The value of slides in lectures: An exploratory study. Visual Education, 39–41.
36.
HartleyJ.MarshallS. (1974). On notes and notetaking. Universities Quarterly, 4, 225–235.
37.
HoweM. J. (1970a). Note-taking strategy, review, and long-term retention of verbal information. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 285.
38.
HoweM. J. (1970b). Using students' notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 61–63.
39.
HughesC. A.HendricksonJ. M.HudsonP. J. (1987). The pause procedure: Improving factual recall from lectures by low and high achieving middle school students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 13, 217–224.
40.
HughesC. A.SmithJ. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66–79.
41.
HughesC. A.SmithJ. O.SuritskyS. S. (1990). Self-reported difficulties in meeting critical setting demands: A structured interview of university students with learning disabilitiesUnpublished manuscript, Penn State.
42.
KeoghB.MargolisT. (1976). Learn to labor and wait: Attentional problems of children with learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 276–286.
43.
KiewraK. A. (1983). The process of review: A levels of processing approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 366–374.
44.
KiewraK. A. (1984). Implications for notetaking based on relationships between notetaking variables and achievement measures. Reading Improvement, 21, 145–149.
45.
KiewraK. A. (1985a). Students' notetaking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.
46.
KiewraK. A. (1985b). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
47.
KiewraK. A. (1987). Notetaking and review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science, 16, 233–249.
48.
KiewraK. A.BentonS. L. (1985). The effects of higher order review questions with feedback among learners who take notes or receive the instructor's notes. Human Learning, 4, 225–231.
49.
KiewraK. A.FletcherH. J. (1984). The relationship between levels of notetaking and achievement. Human Learning, 3, 273–280.
50.
KirkS. A.ChalfantJ. C. (1984). Academic and developmental learning disabilities. Denver: Love.
51.
LadasH. (1980). Note-taking on lectures: An information-processing approach. Educational Psychologist, 15, 44–53.
52.
LeBauerR. S. (1984). Using lecture transcripts in EAP lecture comprehension courses. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (1), 41–54.
53.
LockeE. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture note taking among college students. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 93–99.
54.
MaddoxH.HooleE. (1975). Performance decrement in the lecture. Educational Review, 28, 17–30.
55.
MangrumC. T.StrichartS. S. (1984). College and the learning disabled student. New York: Grune & Stratton.
56.
MaqsudM. (1980). Effects of personal lecture notes and teacher notes on recall of university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 289–294.
57.
MatthewsP. R.AndersonD. W.SkolnickB. D. (1987). Faculty attitude toward accommodations for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 46–52.
58.
MoranM. R. (1980). An investigation of the demands on oral language skills of learning disabled students in secondary classrooms (Research Report No. 1). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
59.
MoranM. R. (1981). A comparison of formal features of written language of learning disabled, low-achieving, and achieving secondary students (Research Report No. 34). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
60.
NelsonJ. R.DoddJ. M.SmithD. J. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 185–189.
61.
NelsonJ. R.Lignugaris/KraftB. (1989). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56, 246–265.
62.
PalmatierR. A.BennettJ. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215–218.
63.
PeckK. L.HannafinM. J. (1983). The effects of notetaking pretraining on the recording of notes and retention of aural instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 100–107.
64.
PeperR. J.MayerR. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514–522.
65.
PeperR. J.MayerR. E. (1986). Generative effects of notetaking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
66.
PetersE. L. (1972). Effects of note taking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 276–280.
67.
PowersS. M.PowersW. A. (1978). Instructor-prepared notes and achievement in introductory psychology. Journal of Experimental Education, 47, 37–41.
68.
ReidD. K. (1988). Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
69.
RichardsA. (1985). College composition: Recognizing the learning disabled writer. Journal of Basic Writing, 4 (2), 68–79.
70.
RossA. O. (1976). Psychological aspects of learning disabilities and reading disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill.
71.
RoweM. B. (1976). The pausing principle—two invitations to inquiry. Research on College Science Teaching, 5, 258–259.
72.
RoweM. B. (1980). Pausing principles and their effects on reasoning in science. New Directions in Community Colleges, 31, 27–34.
73.
RoweM. B. (1983). Getting chemistry off the killer course list. Journal of Chemical Education, 60, 954–956.
74.
RuhlK. L.HughesC. A.GajarA. H. (1990). Efficacy of the pause procedure for enhancing learning disabled and nondisabled college students' long- and short-term recall of facts presented through lecture. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 55–64.
75.
RuhlK. L.HughesC. A.SchlossP. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18.
ShawS. F.NorlanderK. A. (1986). The special educator's role in training personnel to provide assistance to college students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 77–81.
78.
SmithP. L.TompkinsG. E. (1988). Structured notetaking: A new strategy for content area readers. Journal of Reading, 32, 46–53.
79.
SuritskyS. K.HughesC. A. (1990). Effects of lecturer's verbal cues on the quality of notes and test performance of learning disabled and nondisabled college studentsManuscript submitted for publication.
80.
SwansonH. L. (1985). Assessing learning disabled children's intellectual performance: An information processing perspective. In GadowK. D. (Ed.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 4, pp. 225–272). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
81.
TorgesenJ. K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 27–34.
82.
TorgesenJ. K.HouckD. G. (1980). Processing deficiencies of learning disabled children who perform poorly on the digit span test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 141–160.
83.
VogelS. A. (1985). Learning disabled college student: Identification, assessment, and outcomes. In DrakeD. D.LeongC. K. (Eds.), Understanding learning disabilities: International and multidisciplinary views (pp. 179–203). New York: Plenum Press.
84.
VogelS. A. (1987). Issues and concerns in LD college programming. In JohnsonD. J.BlalockJ. W. (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities: Clinical studies (pp. 239–275). Orlando: Grune & Stratton.
85.
WestendorfD. K.CapeE. L.SkrticT. M. (1982). A naturalistic study of postsecondary setting demandsUnpublished manuscript, University of Kansas.
86.
WhyteL. A. (1984). Characteristics of learning disabilities persisting into adulthood. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 30, 14–25.
87.
WiensJ. (1983). Metacognition and the adolescent passive learner. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 144–149.
