Note This: How to Improve

Student Note Taking

IDEA Paper #73 • September 2018

Kenneth A. Kiewra • University of Nebraska

Tiphaine Colliot • Rennes 2 University
Junrong Lu • University of Nebraska

Abstract

Students are incomplete note takers who routinely record just one third of a lesson’s important
information in their notes. This is unfortunate, because the number of lesson points recorded in notes
is positively correlated with student achievement. Moreover, both the activity of recording notes and the
subsequent review of notes are advantageous. The authors offer instructors a menu of research-based
advice for bolstering student note taking: provide complete notes, provide partial notes, provide note-
taking cues, re-present the lesson, provide pauses and revision opportunities, control laptop usage,
control “cyber slacking,” use PowerPoint slides effectively, and teach note-taking skills. They also
suggest ways to help students transform their notes during the note-review process and SOAR (select,
organize, associate, and regulate) to success.

Keywords: Note taking, SOAR, strategy instruction

Kenneth Kiewra began his note-taking investigations feverishly whenever Fletcher looked away. One day, as
while a graduate student at Florida State University in Kiewra scribbled, he sensed a presence creeping up
1979. This research interest was prompted by his on him from behind. He looked up to see Fletcher
statistics professor, Harold Fletcher, who outlawed peering down at the notepad. “Mr. Kiewra, are you
student note taking during class. Fletcher told his taking notes in my class?” Dr. Fletcher asked. Caught
students that taking notes diverted their attention pen-handed, Kiewra could do nothing but lie: “Ah, no,
from the lecture; it was better to listen and think I’m writing a letter to a friend back home.” Staring
about the material than to mindlessly record what was down at the now exposed pad, Fletcher retorted,
being said. Yet Fletcher realized that students needed “Well, how nice of you to tell your friend about
notes to review later, so he prepared written lesson omnibus testing.”
notes and offered them to students following each
class. Prompted by this experience, Kiewra conducted six
note-taking studies under Fletcher’s supervision while
Most students embraced the idea of kicking back in graduate school and has continued investigating
during lectures and getting comprehensive notes note taking ever since, seeking optimal ways for
afterward, but not Kiewra. He was a voracious note students to record notes and for instructors to aid
taker who had been named Note Taker of the Year student note taking. Recently, Kiewra’s note-taking
Runner-Up twice in college. So, in Professor Fletcher’s expertise had its day in court when he was summoned
class, Kiewra became a closet note taker. He as an expert witness by a major energy company
retreated to the back of the room and sat behind a under fire from the US Securities and Exchange
former Seminole lineman, concealed by his bulk. Commission for misleading investors. The evidence:
There he huddled over a small notepad and wrote investors’ meeting notes with energy-company

1
executives. Kiewra examined the notes and described What Is Wrong with Students’ Notes?
note-taking research that might invalidate them For notes to be optimally effective, they must be
(2016). Case closed. complete. The more complete that students’ notes
are, the higher those students’ achievement (e.g.,
Now that you know a bit about the first author’s note- Kiewra, 1985; Nye, Crooks, Powley, & Tripp, 1984;
taking background, you have some context for the rest Peverly, Garner, & Vekaria, 2014). Unfortunately,
of our article on this practice. First we explain why most students’ notes are woefully incomplete.
note taking is potentially effective and important for Students, on average, record just one third of
student achievement. Next we describe problems important lesson ideas (Austin, Lee, & Carr, 2004;
associated with students’ notes that reduce their Kiewra, 2016; Titsworth, 2004). To understand how
effectiveness. Last, we address several ways that problematic this is, imagine asking someone for their
instructors can improve student note taking and thus phone number. They report their full 10-digit number,
raise achievement. but you record just 3 of those digits. Good luck placing
a call later! Similarly, examine Figure 1, which shows
Why Note Taking Is Effective what one-third note completeness looks like. Imagine
Most students take notes (Bonner & Holliday, 2006; studying these spotty notes weeks later in preparation
Castello & Monereo, 2005), which is good because for an exam.
note taking serves two functions: process and
product. The process of note taking (as Kiewra tried to Figure 1. What recording one third of lesson
do in Professor Fletcher’s class) and the product, the information in notes looks like (shown in black).
notes themselves (as Fletcher arranged), both boost
achievement. The process of taking notes is effective
(Bligh, 2000; Einstein, Morris, & Smith, 1985; Kiewra,
Mayer, Christensen, Kim, & Risch, 1991; Suritsky &
Hughes, 1991) because the activity focuses students’
attention on instruction (e.g., Katayama & Crooks,
2003; Kobayashi, 2006; Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg,
2005) and leads to better assimilation of lesson ideas
with prior knowledge than does simply listening
(Peper & Mayer, 1978, 1986; Shrager & Mayer,
1989). However, some studies do not show a process
advantage for note taking, meaning that simply
listening during a lesson is as effective as recording
notes during it (Fisher & Harris, 1973; Glover, Zimmer,
Ronning, & Petersen, 1980; Kiewra et al., 1991; Riley
& Dyer, 1979).

Note taking’s product function is effective (e.g.,

Armbruster, 2000; Fisher & Harris; Kiewra, 1985,
1989; Knight & McKelvie, 1986; Luo, Kiewra, &
Samuelson, 2016) because it allows more time for
meaningfully processing recorded ideas when notes
are reviewed following the lesson (e.g., Crooks, White,
& Barnard, 2007; Kiewra, 1985; Kiewra et al., 1991).
Some studies try to determine which of note taking’s Why are students such incomplete note takers? One
two functions is stronger. This line of investigation reason is probably what we might call technical
generally confirms that the product function is difficulties (Bassili & Joordens, 2008; Bui & Myerson,
stronger than the process function (Kiewra et al., 2014; Peverly et al., 2013). Most lectures are
1991; Kobayashi, 2005; Rickards & Friedman, 1978). presented at a rate of approximately 120 to 180
We contend, however, that both functions are words per minute (Wong, 2014). This rate is too fast
important and improvable and that comparing their for most note-taking students, who on average can
relative merits is akin to asking, “Which is more keyboard at just 33 words per minute (Karat,
important, writing a letter or mailing it?” Halverson, Horn, & Karat, 1999) or write longhand at
just 22 words per minute (Brown, 1999). In other
cases, students are known to record fewer notes

2
when (a) visual aids are shown or questions are asked meaning. Suppose a lecturer says, “Monsoons are
by other students (Maddox & Hoole, 1975); (b) the likely in western coastal areas,” but a student writes
lesson topic is familiar (Trevors, Duffy, & Azevedo, down, “Monsoons occur in coastal areas.” The student
2014; Van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994); (c) they has missed the important qualifier “western” and will
are feeling fatigued, especially in the latter portions of later review their recorded statement that erroneously
lectures (Locke, 1977); or (d) they are pulled off-task suggests that monsoons occur in all coastal areas. In
by digital distractions such as cell phones and laptops Kiewra’s court case (2016), mentioned earlier, an
(Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). energy-company executive stated, “If recent trends
hold true, the site can produce 100 million barrels of
Students’ notes are not only generally incomplete but oil,” but an investor missed the qualifier “if recent
are also missing vital details, examples, and qualifiers trends hold true” and tersely wrote, “the site can
or are just plain inaccurate. Students actually do a produce 100 million barrels of oil.”
good job of recording a lesson’s superordinate main
ideas but fail to record its subordinate details (Kiewra Students also sometimes record information
& Benton, 1988). In one note-taking study, Kiewra, inaccurately. In one study, Crawford (1925) found that
Benton, and Lewis (1987) counted the percentage of 53% of noted information was fully correct, 45% was
ideas that students noted, at various levels of detail. vague, and 2% was inaccurate. Another study
To get a sense of how this was done, consider the (Maddox & Hoole, 1975) indicated that 61% of note
following sentences from what might be a lesson on takers introduced one or more inaccuracies into their
note taking, and the corresponding levels of ideas notes and that most inaccuracies involved numerals.
therein: A third study (Johnstone & Su, 1994) also reported
that notes contain inaccuracies and that most occur
Note taking increases achievement (level 1) when copying diagrams and numerical information.
through its process and product functions
(level 2). The process function involves the What Instructors Can Do to Aid Note Taking
activity of note taking (level 3) and is There are several research-based techniques that
measured by comparing the achievement of instructors can use to improve student note taking
note takers and listeners (level 4). and the resulting notes: provide complete notes,
provide partial notes, provide note-taking cues, re-
Students’ notes became progressively less complete present the lesson, provide pauses and revision
as lesson ideas grew in subordination levels and opportunities, control laptop usage, control “cyber
detail. Students recorded 91% of the most slacking,” use PowerPoint slides effectively, teach
superordinate level 1 ideas, 60% of level 2 ideas, 35% note-taking skills, and help students transform notes
of level 3 ideas, and only 11% of the most and SOAR (select, organize, associate, and regulate)
subordinate, level 4 ideas. to success. We discuss each technique, and the
research supporting it, in turn.
Students often omit examples from notes. In the study
conducted by Austin et al. (2004), students recorded Provide Complete Notes
notes pertaining to only 13% of lesson examples, It appears that Professor Fletcher knew what he was
even though examples are often crucial for doing when he provided students with a complete set
understanding lesson ideas. Consider how difficult it of notes to review. Research confirms that students
is to understand the following rule regarding comma who review provided notes achieve more than students
usage without the accompanying example, which who record and review their own notes. In a study by
demonstrates what is meant by “coordinate Kiewra and Benton (1987), college students watched a
conjunctions” and “main clauses.” 20-minute video lesson on learning hierarchies, with
one group of students taking notes while another
Use a comma if there is a coordinate group abstained. Note takers later reviewed their
conjunction joining two main clauses. notes; non–note takers reviewed a set of provided
Paradise was an exclusive country club (main notes that were complete. Following the 25-minute
clause), but (coordinate conjunction) the gates review period, all students were tested on the lesson.
of hell were open (main clause). Those who reviewed the provided notes achieved 17%
higher scores than the students who reviewed their
Qualifiers are often absent from students’ notes, too own notes—not surprising, given that the provided
(Maddox & Hoole, 1975). Qualifiers are usually notes contained all 115 lesson ideas, whereas
adjectives that are added to nouns to qualify a noun’s

3
students’ own notes contained, on average, just 38% with 100% accuracy and completion. Unfortunately,
of lesson ideas. recording one’s own notes took a toll on achievement.
Those provided with complete notes outscored the
One study (Kiewra, 1985) went so far as to show that note takers by 16%, 12%, and 17% on tests
reviewing a complete set of provided notes can even measuring main ideas, hierarchical relationships, and
compensate for missing a lesson. Students attended problem solving, respectively. These results were
a 20-minute lesson on the purpose and construction replicated when the hierarchical form was replaced
of learning hierarchies and either took notes or simply with an outline form (Colliot & Jamet, 2018a).
listened. Another group of students did not attend the
lesson at all. Later, students reviewed either no notes, Perhaps instructors are not inclined to do students’
their own notes, a complete set of provided notes, or work for them or fear encouraging absenteeism by
both their own notes and provided notes, resulting in providing a complete and ready-made set of notes to
the seven groups shown on the left side of Table 1; review. Or perhaps instructors recognize note taking’s
the right side shows the test results. Notice that the process value and do not want to forgo that. Both of
top-performing groups all studied the complete notes, these potential problems can be addressed by
the bottom-performing groups all had no notes to providing students with partial notes.
study, and the middle-performing group took their own
notes and studied only those. Those self-recorded Provide Partial Notes
notes, by the way, contained, on average, just 35% of A simpler note-providing alternative, which shares
the important ideas included in the lesson and in the note-taking responsibilities between instructors and
provided notes. These findings confirm that note students and maintains note taking’s process benefit,
taking’s primary value lies in its product function and is partial notes. Partial notes provide only main ideas
that it is important to have a complete set of notes to and cue students to record additional notes in blank
review, regardless of what occurs at acquisition— spaces. In one study investigating partial notes
listening only, taking notes while listening, or being (Kiewra, Benton, Kim, Risch, & Christensen, 1995),
absent. Moreover, the tried-and-true method of students attended a video lesson on the topic of
recording and reviewing one’s own notes is relatively creativity and recorded notes either from scratch or
ineffective. on distributed partial notes, such as those in Figure 2.
Those taking notes on their own recorded 38% of
Table 1 important lesson ideas, whereas those using partial
Note-Taking Groups and Their Test Results Reveal the notes recorded 56% of important lesson information.
Achievement Value of Provided Notes Group achievement differences mirrored those for
note taking.

Groups Test Results Figure 2. Partial notes for a lesson on creativity.

Take notes/Review own + provided 71%

Not attend/Review provided 69% Creativity
Listen/Review provided 63%
Adaptive Innovative Emergent
Take notes/Review own 51% Creativity Creativity Creativity
Take notes/Review no notes 44%
Outcome:
Listen/Review no notes 43%
Not attend/Review no notes 33%
Motivation:

In a study involving text learning (Colliot & Jamet,

Time
2018a), college students read a 1,500-word text on
Demands:
memory at their own pace. Some of the students were
also provided with a complete set of notes in
hierarchical form, showing all 21 superordinate and Example:
subordinate lesson ideas. Others were asked to
create hierarchical notes on their own, which they did

4
Some studies have investigated the benefits of partial In a study favoring complete notes (Stull & Mayer,
notes when students learn from text presented via 2007, Experiment 3), college students studied a text
computer. One key finding is that when partial notes about reproductive barriers between species and
are provided and students are given the choice to received either complete notes or partial organizers
either type or copy and paste notes into text boxes, that needed to be completed while reading. Those
approximately 80% of students choose to copy and who received complete notes achieved 50% more on
paste notes (Igo, Bruning, McCrudden, & Kauffman, a problem-solving test than those who received partial
2003). Although copying and pasting often leads to notes.
more complete notes than typing—40% versus 20%
(Bauer & Koedinger, 2007)—the former leads to lower Finally, provided complete notes and partial notes
achievement. Such was the case when students who proved comparable in another learning-from-text
typed notes onto partial outlines while reading study (Colliot & Jamet, 2018c). College students read
chapter-length texts achieved more on both a 1,500-word text on memory, presented on the
immediate and delayed application tests than those computer. One group received a completed organizer
who copied and pasted notes, with each test showing the lesson’s 21 superordinate and
administered following note review (Katayama, subordinate ideas in hierarchical form. Another group
Shambaugh, & Doctor, 2005). recorded notes on a hierarchy framework (partial
notes) that contained space to record superordinate
The problem with copying and pasting is that students and subordinate ideas. Following the lesson, the two
tend to copy and paste too much information into groups performed comparably on tests measuring
their notes. They sometimes copy and paste entire main ideas, hierarchical relationships, and problem
paragraphs or sentences and do so without much solving. Both groups, though, outperformed a third
cognitive engagement or thought (Igo & Kiewra, 2007; group of students, who had to create their own
Igo, Kiewra, & Bruning, 2008). According to Stacy and hierarchy without assistance, by 20% to 30%,
Cain (2015), “An application that allows students to indicating once again the value of provided notes
copy and paste prewritten notes without including (whether complete or partial) over students’ self-
their own definitions and elaborations is much less generated notes.
effective than one that encourages personally written
language. While verbatim notes may be more In conclusion, partial notes seem to be a good
accurate, the benefit of ‘process’ is absent, and compromise for aiding note taking and learning. First,
therefore, lessens the effect of the learning rather than instructors doing all the note-taking work,
experience” (p. 3). Perhaps a middle ground is that task is shared by instructor and students.
restricting the amount of notes that students copy Second, partial notes engage students in the note-
and paste. When researchers (Igo, Bruning, & taking process. They make students attentive and
McCrudden, 2005) restricted copy-and-paste note active learners during lecture and text lessons while
taking in partial notes to a maximum of only seven relieving students of some of the burden of trying to
words per note-taking cell, those recording restricted record a complete set of notes on their own. In
notes achieved more than those whose copy-and- addition, providing partial notes raises note taking
paste note taking was unrestricted: 12% higher at beyond what students typically record on their own,
recalling text ideas, 20% higher at identifying new thereby resulting in a relatively complete and effective
examples, and 28% higher at comparing text ideas. set of notes for review.
Restricting the amount of notes forced copy-and-paste
note takers to read information carefully and be more Provide Note-Taking Cues
selective about what they recorded. Instructors can easily deploy two types of lesson cues
to boost note taking: importance cues and
Regarding whether it is better for instructors to organizational cues. Cues signaling importance can
provide complete or partial notes, findings are mixed. be written, presented orally, or delivered nonverbally.
In a study favoring partial notes (Katayama & In one study, students recorded 86% of information
Robinson, 2000), college students studied a chapter- written on the blackboard (Locke, 1977). Providing
length text on sleep disorders and received either written questions is another way to signal what is
complete notes on this topic or a series of partial most important in a lesson. Rickards and McCormick
organizers to complete in either outline or matrix (1988) had college students listen to an 800-word
form. Students with partial notes achieved more on an lecture, divided into 16 sections, about the fictitious
application test than those with complete notes by an country of Mala. Some students received a pre-
18% margin. question before each segment to focus their attention

5
on that material. Pre-questions raised both note followed by two tests, one assessing lesson
taking and achievement: Those who received pre- organization and one assessing lesson details. Notes
questions recorded 20% of the lesson’s critical were also analyzed for organizational points and
information, versus the only 2% recorded by those details. Organizational cues positively impacted note
who did not receive them. Regarding achievement, taking and achievement. The cued group recorded
those who received pre-questions recalled approximately 40% more organizational points and
approximately 25% more material than those who did 45% more details in notes than the uncued group.
not. Higher rates of note taking led to higher achievement.
The cued group achieved nearly seven times more on
Oral lesson cues might include an instructor saying, organizational points and nearly twice as much on
“This point is noteworthy/imperative/absolutely details compared to the uncued group.
critical/likely to be on the test.” Sometimes it is not
just what instructors say but how they say it that Re-present the Lesson
signals importance. Variance in voice pitch, cadence, It might seem far-fetched for instructors to re-present
volume, or rate can let students know that a lesson to students, but instructors working in the
information is noteworthy. So too can repeating digital world can easily do so when they make a
information. recorded lesson available to students online so that it
can be viewed more than once. But is there an
Nonverbal cues also signal importance. One college advantage to multiple lesson viewings? Kiewra et al.
instructor whom we know emphasizes important (1991) discovered that there is. Students in their
points nonverbally by cradling his chin in his hand, study watched a brief video lesson either one, two, or
thrusting out his bottom lip, arching his eyebrows, and three times. Students in a fourth, free-viewing, group
nodding his head vehemently. His students know to watched individually and controlled how the video was
write feverishly when this cue medley erupts. In a played: They could pause, rewind, fast forward, or
reported study (Moore, 1968), a lecturer held up replay any portion. In terms of note taking, all groups
cards that signaled whether note taking was were equally effective, recording approximately 80%
warranted—green for yes and red for no—in one class of the lesson’s main ideas whether they viewed it
but not in another, for 12 lectures over a six-week three times or only once.
period. The class that received cues outperformed the
class that did not on an achievement test covering the However, the groups varied in their recording of
lecture material. Other nonverbal cues might include lesson details. Students who viewed the lesson two
pointing, clapping, finger snapping, hand waving, a times recorded more details than those who viewed it
piercing glance, or a rap on the table. Saying nothing only once (53% vs. 38%); the same was true of those
can also serve as a cue. When instructors pause after who viewed it three times (60%) or on their own
delivering a lesson point, most students probably (65%). Achievement results mirrored note-taking
know to fill the silence with note taking. results, because those who recorded more notes
tended to achieve more. It is interesting to note how
Organizational cues alert students to the lesson’s the free-viewing students viewed the lesson. All of
structure, and they raise both note taking and them watched the lesson only once, never replaying it
achievement. In a study investigating organizational in its entirety. Instead, they often paused the lesson to
lesson cues (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004), students jot notes, and they replayed brief sections that they
listened to one of two forms of a lesson: cued or thought required additional viewing. Their total
uncued. Both forms were well organized and identical, viewing time approximated that of the three-viewings
with one exception: The cued lesson signaled the group.
lesson’s organization by emphasizing the four lesson
topics (the names of four communication theories) Regarding whether students in authentic learning
and the five lesson categories common to each topic settings actually view posted lessons multiple times or
(e.g., definition, example, application). For example, slow down the viewing process as the free-viewing
one lesson cue inserted in the lesson was “Next, we students did in the Kiewra et al. study (1991) is, to
examine the application of general systems theory.” our knowledge, unknown. To determine students’
Another was “Here is the definition of mass media viewing behaviors, instructors can ask them how they
theory.” Each lesson cue set the stage for introducing view posted lessons or perhaps track their viewing
an important lesson detail. There were 20 behaviors through a course’s learning-management
organizational cues spaced throughout the lesson. system. In the meantime, we encourage instructors to
After the lesson, a brief period for note review was post lessons online whenever possible, prompt

6
students to replay or slow down posted presentations Control Laptop Usage
when they view them and tell students the note-taking Students’ use of laptop computers to record notes is
and achievement benefits of doing so. on the rise (Fried, 2008; Lauricella & Kay, 2010):
Approximately one third of college students take class
Provide Pauses and Revision Opportunities notes using laptops (Aguilar-Roca, Williams, &
Many lessons, especially recorded lessons, are O’Dowd, 2012). Although most students can type
presented too rapidly for students to keep pace and more quickly than they can write (Brown, 1999; Karat
record adequate notes. Instructors should heed the et al., 1999), is laptop note taking a superior
simple advice to slow down. There is another way, alternative to recording notes in longhand? As
though, to help students record more notes: provide described in the next section, students are often
lesson pauses and ask students to revise (i.e., add to distracted by their laptops and other digital devices
and embellish) their existing notes. Luo et al. (2016) during class, because they check text messages and
assessed the value of note revision in Experiment 1 of surf Web sites unrelated to class topics.
a two-experiment study. They played a 14-minute
audiotaped lesson delivered at a rate of 136 words Those problems aside, recent research (Luo, Kiewra,
per minute for students, who were directed to record Flanigan, & Peteranetz, in press; Mueller &
notes throughout the lesson. Following the lesson, Oppenheimer, 2014) casts doubts on the viability of
students were either instructed to revise their notes or laptop note taking. The study by Luo and colleagues
to merely recopy them, as students often do. (2018) investigated the relative benefits of laptop
Naturally, only those who revised added more lesson note taking versus longhand, when notes are
ideas to their notes. Revisers mildly outperformed recorded and not reviewed (the process function of
note copiers on a fact test (3%) and a relationship test note taking) and when notes are both recorded and
(13%). reviewed (the product function of note taking).
Students watched a 23-minute, narrated PowerPoint
In Experiment 2, the researchers assessed how best lesson about educational measurement containing 23
to carry out revisions. A new group of students heard slides with text and images. Achievement tests
the same lesson as those in Experiment 1, but this assessed text-based and image-based learning. To
time students revised either for 15 minutes at the assess note taking’s process effect, half the laptop
lesson’s end or during three 5-minute pauses spaced and longhand note takers took achievement tests
throughout the lesson. In addition, students revised right after the lesson, without the opportunity to
either alone or with a partner. Overall, revising during review. To assess note taking’s product effect,
pauses with a partner produced more complete notes remaining laptop and longhand note takers reviewed
and higher fact and relationship scores than revising notes for 15 minutes before taking the achievement
at the end of the lesson by oneself. tests. Regarding note taking’s process function,
laptop and longhand note takers performed
The researchers (Luo et al., 2016) contend that comparably on the image-based test, but the laptop
revision works because students can use their group outscored the longhand group on the text-
existing notes to retrieve other lesson ideas that they based test. Regarding note taking’s product function,
had not previously recorded. Having recorded the the longhand group outscored the laptop group on
main idea that short-term memory is limited might both the image-based and text-based tests.
help a reviser later retrieve the detail that short-term
memory holds approximately seven bits of information Notes were analyzed as well and explained
and the example of a phone number conforming to achievement differences (Luo et al., in press). Laptop
short-term memory’s limitation. The researchers and longhand note takers recorded equal amounts of
contend that pauses work because students can lesson ideas—about one third of lesson points—but
retrieve their potential revisions from memory with laptop notes were wordier than longhand notes and
less delay than if revision is saved until the end of the contained more verbatim strings. This is a measure of
lesson. Lesson pauses probably also offset fatigue. the degree to which students record lesson ideas
And, the researchers contend, revising with partners verbatim rather than paraphrase them. Verbatim note
is effective because partners can share notes and taking is considered more superficial and less
collaborate on revisions. Two heads are better than meaningful than paraphrased note taking, and some
one. even call it mindless (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014).
Longhand note takers, meanwhile, recorded images
such as graphs and tables, but laptop note takers

7
recorded none of these things, perhaps because of One study cleverly examined the effect of students’
the difficulty of capturing such images on a laptop. mobile phone usage on note taking and achievement
(Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). College students
The researchers (Luo et al., in press) concluded that assigned to one of three groups watched a 12-minute
longhand note takers recorded higher quality notes video lecture about communication theories with
than laptop note takers: Notes were more efficient either no phone distractions (control group); low
and contained more paraphrasing and more images. distraction, where students received a text message
Recording notes of this quality had both a cost and a every 60 seconds; or high distraction, where students
benefit. The cost was the additional cognitive strain received a text message every 30 seconds. Students
during the lesson that somewhat hindered text-based in the two distraction groups had to respond to the
learning if notes were not reviewed (the process texts when they occurred, and all students recorded
function of note taking). The benefit was a superior notes during the lecture and were tested following the
set of notes for review (the product function of note lecture. Results showed that text distractions lowered
taking) that, in turn, led to higher text-based and note-taking quantity. Those in the control group
image-based achievement than did the review of recorded 33% of lesson ideas, compared to 27% for
laptop notes. And because the primary purpose of the low-distraction group and 20% for the high-
note taking is to create a complete and effective set distraction group. Text distractions also lowered
of notes for review, the benefit was worth the price. achievement. The control group outscored the low-
Instructors, by the way, might believe that they can distraction group by 7% and the high-distraction group
simply warn laptop note takers not to record verbatim by 13% on a multiple-choice test and recalled
notes because of their ineffectiveness. Researchers approximately 50% and 100% more lesson ideas than
actually posed such warnings, but laptop note takers those groups, respectively.
recorded verbatim notes nonetheless (Mueller &
Oppenheimer, 2014). Instructors should make It is evident that students cyber slack in class and that
students aware of the potential disadvantages of doing so diminishes attention, note taking, and
laptop note taking as well as the following attention achievement. Some instructors, after observing
detriments. students using digital technology to send emails and
surf the Internet during class, have simply outlawed
Control “Cyber Slacking” digital devices in class and insisted on longhand note
Cyber slacking is the unwarranted use of mobile taking (Fink, 2010). Flanigan and Kiewra (2018),
technology in the classroom for purposes other than meanwhile, offer instructors a menu of classroom
learning. Laptops and other mobile devices are strategies to minimize student cyber slacking, such as
ubiquitous in college classrooms and prove incorporating active learning experiences in the
detrimental because they pull students off-task classroom, adopting and enforcing technology
(Flanigan, 2018), limit note taking (Kuznekoff & policies, making students aware of cyber-slacking
Titsworth, 2013), and reduce achievement (McCoy, temptations and consequences, incentivizing
2013, 2016; Dietz & Henrich, 2014). When Fried students to relinquish mobile phones in the
(2008) asked students how they used their laptops classroom, and incorporating mobile technology in the
during class, 81% reported checking email, 43% classroom as a teaching tool.
reported surfing the Web, 25% reported playing
games, and 35% reported other activities unrelated to Use PowerPoint Slides Effectively
learning. More recent studies confirm that (a) 70% of Lessons taught using PowerPoint slides can aid
students send text messages via their phones during student attention, note taking, and achievement. Frey
class (Emanuel, 2013; Kornhauser, Paul, & Siedlecki, and Birnbaum (2002) examined student perceptions
2016); (b) students send or receive approximately 20 of PowerPoint presentations and found that 69% of
text messages per class period (Dietz & Henrich; students believed that such presentations held their
Pettijohn, Frazier, Rieser, Vaughn, & Hupp-Wildsde, attention and 80% believed that printed PowerPoint
2015); (c) students spend more than half a typical handouts helped them take notes. Positive note-
class period using laptops for nonclass purposes taking findings were confirmed in another study
(Ragan, Jennings, Massey, & Doolittle, 2014); and (d) (Susskind, 2005), where half the lectures were taught
students do all this even though they are aware that in a traditional format and half were accompanied by
cyber slacking negatively impacts learning (Froese et PowerPoint slides. Students who experienced both
al., 2012; McCoy, 2016). formats reported that note taking was easier, more
extensive, and more organized for PowerPoint
lectures than for traditional lectures.

8
Instructors can raise student achievement by posting to learn. Let us see how Teacher A+ might embed
PowerPoint slides in advance of class. Chen and Lin strategy training related to note taking.
(2008) tracked students’ behavior of downloading
PowerPoint slides before classes over one semester Class, I noticed that many of you recorded
and their performances on three examinations during incomplete notes when I spoke last week
that semester. Downloading PowerPoint slides before about creativity. Here is a set of complete
classes had a large and positive effect on exam notes that I created for that lesson to model
performance—even more than students’ class good note taking. I numbered each lesson
attendance. Speaking of class attendance, be warned point so that you can compare my notes with
that providing PowerPoint slides might decrease yours to see how many lesson points you
students’ class attendance. Among surveyed omitted from your notes.
students, 75% agreed or strongly agreed that they
were less motivated to attend class when PowerPoint I’m not surprised that most of you recorded
slides were available (Gurrie & Fair, 2010). about one third of the information compared
to the notes that I provided. Research shows
When instructors provide students with PowerPoint that most students record only one third of
slides, they should provide space for note taking. important lesson ideas. That’s too bad,
Students report that they learn better when they can because research also shows that the more
simultaneously view the PowerPoint lesson and take notes that students record, the higher their
notes (Gurrie & Fair, 2010). When providing note- test performance.
taking space, instructors should follow two guidelines.
First, the space should be ample; the more space that Let me teach you a strategy that I call note
is provided, the more notes students will record (Boye, revision, which will make your notes more
2012). Second, instructors should place the note- complete. Soon after a lesson, reread your
taking space in close proximity to the related notes and try to recall and record lesson
information. According to Mayer’s spatial-contiguity information missing from them. For example,
principle (2007), people learn more from a you noted that “adaptive creativity is the
multimedia lesson when corresponding printed words ability to use past knowledge to solve
and graphics are presented near, rather than far from, everyday problems”; that note might remind
each other on the page or screen. Spatial contiguity you of related information not contained in
helps students build associations between notes and your notes, such as that adaptive creativity
the corresponding information on slides. takes 3 to 5 years to master, or the adaptive
creativity example of a homemaker preparing
Teach Note-Taking Skills dinner for uninvited guests. Record such
According to Kiewra (2009), a Grade-A teacher information in your revised notes to make
presents information so effectively that students them as complete as possible. Here’s
cannot help but learn. To aid student note taking, another tip: When you revise notes, try to do
Teacher A might slow the lecture, provide pauses to so with a partner, because that way you can
facilitate revision, insert lesson cues, provide partial share recorded ideas and make revisions
notes, and outlaw unnecessary mobile technology. together. Two heads are better than one.
Although such teaching is certainly effective, it does
not necessarily teach students how to learn on their Help Students Transform Notes and SOAR to Success
own when they attend other classes. For that, Teacher Recording a complete set of notes is not the ultimate
A+ is needed (Kiewra, 2009). Teacher A+ does all the goal. As mentioned earlier, the primary value of note
effective, nearly-guaranteed-student-learning things taking lies in reviewing recorded notes. Unfortunately,
that Teacher A does, but also something more. students often review their notes in shallow and
Teacher A+ teaches students how to learn by ineffective ways—studying one idea at a time in a
embedding strategy instruction into content piecemeal fashion and employing redundant
instruction. That is, as Teacher A+ teaches math or strategies such as recopying and rehearsing notes
science or history or art, he or she also teaches (Gubbels, 1999; Jairam & Kiewra, 2010; Van Meter et
lifelong strategies, such as those for note taking. al., 1994). It has long been known that these shallow
Kiewra believes that all instructors have the review activities do little to boost achievement
opportunity if not the obligation to embed strategy (Jacoby, 1973).
training in content instruction and teach students how

9
Just as instructors can facilitate the note-taking Having a complete set of notes is advantageous, but
process, they can facilitate note review by helping the form of most notes is not. Most notes are in linear
students transform their notes in ways that help them form—a series of sentences and lists that obscure
SOAR to success (see Kiewra, 2009). SOAR is an associations among lesson ideas. Whenever possible,
acronym for the four critical aspects of learning: instructors should help students fulfill the organize
select, organize, associate, and regulate. When aspect of SOAR by providing them with or helping
students record complete notes, they fulfill the select them create graphic organizers, such as matrices,
aspect of SOAR: They select and record all the that readily reveal lesson associations (Kiewra, 2012).
important lesson information for further study. Figure 3 shows a set of matrix notes about the
psychology topic of reinforcement schedules.

Figure 3. Matrix notes for a lesson on reinforcement schedules.

Notice how easy this matrix makes it to identify (b) What is the result of extinction for a response
associations, SOAR’s third aspect; for example, (a) learned on a variable schedule?; and (c) Every time a
Ratio schedules are based on numbers, whereas factory worker makes 5 widgets, she is paid $30.
interval schedules are based on time; (b) Ratio What schedule is this?
schedules produce rapid responding, whereas interval
schedules produce slow responding; and (c) Fixed SOAR strategies work. Students studying SOAR
schedules are easy to extinguish, whereas variable materials that they helped create for a lesson on
schedules are difficult to extinguish. wildcats learned 29% more facts and 63% more
associations than students using their own preferred
SOAR’s fourth aspect, regulation, involves students study methods (Jairam & Kiewra, 2010). Students
evaluating their own learning in advance of the actual who created their own SOAR study materials for a
test (or other assessment). Instructors can aid lesson on apes, following just 30 minutes of SOAR
regulation by giving students retrieval practice training, learned 8% more facts and 31% more
(Karpicke, 2012), such as the following questions for associations than students who used their preferred
reinforcement schedules: (a) Which schedule is study methods (Daher & Kiewra, 2016).
associated with slow and steady responding?;

10
 Conclusion
Most students record notes, which is good, because
note taking serves both a process and product
function. The bad news is that most students record
only approximately one third of important lesson
ideas, leaving them with woefully incomplete notes for
review. Fortunately, there are several things
instructors can do to boost note taking. Instructional
strategies aimed at boosting note taking include
providing complete notes, partial notes, or note-taking
cues; re-presenting the lesson; providing pauses and
revision opportunities; controlling laptop usage and
cyber slacking; using PowerPoint slides effectively;
and teaching note-taking skills. In addition, the SOAR
strategy can help students transform their notes into
optimal review materials and SOAR to success. With
all these options available, instructors should be able
to vastly improve student note taking and review.

Author Biographies

Kenneth A. Kiewra is professor of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He earned his PhD
in educational psychology and instructional design from Florida State University and was also on the faculty at
Kansas State University and Utah State University. Kiewra’s research pertains to teaching and learning. He has
investigated the SOAR teaching-and-study method, which he established, and world-class talent development. He is
the former director of the University of Nebraska’s Academic Success Center and the former editor of Educational
Psychology Review. His work and contact information are available on his Web site: [Link]

Tiphaine Colliot is a doctoral student of educational and cognitive psychology at Rennes 2 University in France. Her
research interests include learning strategies, graphic organizers, multimedia learning, and generation effects. She
holds a master’s degree in psychology from Rennes 2 University, France.

Junrong Lu is a doctoral student of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her research
interests include learning strategies, creativity and talent development, and professional development in early
childhood education and STEM education. She holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Beijing Normal
University, China.

11
References

Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of

laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures.
Computers & Education, 59, 1300–1308.
[Link]

Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C.

Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp.
175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Austin, J. L., Lee, M., & Carr, J. P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on
undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 31, 314–320.

Bassili, J. N., & Joordens, S. (2008). Media player tool use, satisfaction with
online lectures and examination performance. International Journal of E-
Learning & Distance Education, 22, 93–108.

Bauer, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007, April). Selection-based note-taking

applications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 981–990). ACM.
[Link]

Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage
in note-taking strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 786–
818. [Link]

Boye, A. (2012). Note-taking in the 21st century: Tips for instructors and
students. Texas Tech University, Teaching, Learning, and Professional
Development Center.

Brown, C. M. (1999). Human-computer interface design guidelines. Exeter,

UK: Intellect Books.

Bui, D. C., & Myerson, J. (2014). The role of working memory abilities in
lecture note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12–22.
[Link]

Castello, M., & Monereo, C. (2005). Students’ note-taking as a knowledge-

construction tool. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 265–
285. [Link]

Chen, J., & Lin, T. F. (2008). Does downloading PowerPoint slides before the
lecture lead to better student achievement? International Review of
Economics Education, 7, 9–18. [Link]
3880(15)30038-4

Colliot, T., & Jamet, E. (2018a). Does self-generating a graphic organizer

improve students’ learning? Computers & Education, 126, 13–22.
[Link]

12
Colliot, T., & Jamet, E. (2018b). How does adding versus self-generating a
hierarchical outline while learning from a multimedia document influence
students' performances? Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 354–361.
[Link]

Colliot, T., & Jamet, E. (2018c). Does Viewing or (Totally or Partially) Self-
Generating a Graphic Organizer Improve Students’ Learning? EARLI SIG 2
Comprehension of Text and Graphics, August, 27th-29th, Freiburg, Germany.

Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between lecture notes and quiz

papers. The Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282–291.

Crooks, S. M., White, D. R., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the
effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 369–391.

Daher, T., & Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies

for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 46, 10–21. [Link]

Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college

students. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 163–167.

Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual

differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(5), 522–532.

Emanuel, R. C. (2013). The American college student cell phone survey.

College Student Journal, 47(1), 75–81.

Fink III, J. L. (2010). Why we banned use of laptops and scribe notes: our
classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(6), 1–2.
Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note taking and review on recall.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321–325.
[Link]

Flanigan, A. E. (2018). How instructional design, academic motivation, and

self-regulated learning tendencies contribute to cyber-slacking? (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about
student cyber-slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 585–597.
[Link]

Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of

PowerPoint in lectures. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED467192)

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning.
Computers & Education, 50, 906–914.
[Link]

Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, D. A., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B.,
Brecht, P. W., et al. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected
and actual learning. College Student Journal, 46(2), 323–332.

13
Glover, J. A., Zimmer, J. W., Ronning, R. R., & Petersen, C. H. (1980). Nobody
knows how to remember that prose. The Journal of Educational Research,
73(6), 340–343.

Gubbels, P. S. (1999). College student studying: A collective case study.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Gurrie, C., & Fair, B. (2010). Power Point—From fabulous to boring: The
misuse of Power Point in higher education classrooms. Journal of the
Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 23, 23–30.

Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. 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.

Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H., McCrudden, M. T., & Kauffman, D. F. (2003).

InfoGather: Six experiments toward the development of an online, data-
gathering tool. In R. Bruning, C. A. Horn, & L. M. Pytlik-Zillig (Eds.), Web-based
learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 57–77). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

Igo, L. B., & Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach

web-based, copy and paste note taking? Selective pasting and related
learning outcomes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 512–529.

Igo, L. B., Kiewra, K. A., & Bruning, R. (2008). Individual differences and
intervention flaws: A sequential explanatory study of college students’ copy-
and-paste note taking. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 149–168.
Jacoby, L. L. (1973). Encoding processes, rehearsal, and recall requirements.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 302–310.
[Link]

Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on

computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 601–614.
[Link]

Johnstone, A. H., & Su, W. Y. (1994). Lectures—A learning experience?

Education in Chemistry, 31(3), 75–76.

Karat, C. M., Halverson, C., Horn, D., & Karat, J. (1999). Patterns of entry and
correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing
systems (pp. 568–575). New York: ACM.
[Link]

Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes

meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 157–
163. [Link]

Katayama, A. D., & Crooks, S. M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of

studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of
Experimental Education, 71, 293–312.
[Link]

14
Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially”
involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental
Education, 68, 119–133.

Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting

knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32,
129–131.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of

processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
[Link]

Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm

and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.
[Link]

Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Teaching how to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Kiewra, K. A. (2012). Using graphic organizers to improve teaching and

learning. The IDEA Center. Retrieved from [Link]

Kiewra, K. A. (2016). Note taking on trial: A legal application of note-taking

research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 377–384.

Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1987). Effects of notetaking, the instructor’s

notes, and higher-order practice questions on factual and higher-order
learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14, 186–194.

Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-

processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13,
33–44.

Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (1995).
Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 172–187.

Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of

notetaking and their relationship with information processing ability. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 14, 110–117.

Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S.-I., & Risch, N. (1991).
Effects of repetition on recall and note-taking: Strategies for learning from
lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 120–123.
[Link]

Knight, L. J., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance, note-taking, and

review on memory for a lecture: Encoding vs. external storage functions of
notes. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18, 52–61.
[Link]

Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-

analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.
[Link]

15
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning
and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review.
Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477.
[Link]

Kornhauser, Z. G. C., Paul, A. L., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2016). An examination of

students’ use of technology for non-academic purposes in the college
classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 5(1), 1–15.

Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on
student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.

Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education
classrooms: The laptop effectiveness scale (LES). Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(2), 151–163.

Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture note taking among college

students. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 93–99.
[Link]

Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A., & Peteranetz, M. (in press). Laptop versus
longhand note taking: Effects on lecture notes and achievement.
Instructional Science. [Link]
Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how
revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement.
Instructional Science, 44, 45–67. [Link]
9370-4

Maddox, H., & Hoole, E. (1975). Performance decrement in the

lecture. Educational Review, 28(1), 17–30.

Mayer, R. E. (2007). Research-based guidelines for multimedia instruction.

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3, 127–147.
[Link]

McCoy, B. R. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom

use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media
Education, 4(4), 5–14.

McCoy, B. R. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student

classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of
Media Education, 7(1), 5–32.

Moore, J. C. (1968). Cueing for selective note taking. Journal of Experimental

Education, 36, 69–72.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the
keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological
Science, 25, 1159–1168. [Link]

Nye, P. A., Crooks, T. J., Powley, M., & Tripp, G. (1984). Student note-taking
related to university examination performance. Higher Education, 13(1), 85–
97.

16
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514–522.

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during

science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
[Link]
Pettijohn, T. F., Frazier, E., Rieser, E., Vaughn, N., & Hupp-Wildsde, B. (2015).
Classroom texting in college students. College Student Journal, 49(4), 513–
516.

Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed
and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and
Writing, 27, 1–30. [Link]

Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R.,
& Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working
memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and
test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–
126. [Link]

Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312.
[Link]

Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014).

Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture halls. Computers &
Education, 62, 24–31.

Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external
storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3,
136–143. [Link]

Rickards, J. P., & McCormick, C. B. (1988). Effect of interspersed conceptual

prequestions on note-taking in listening comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(4), 592–594. [Link]
0663.80.4.592

Riley, J. D., & Dyer, J. (1979). The effects of notetaking while reading or
listening. Reading World, 19(1), 51–56.
[Link]

Shrager, L., & Mayer, R. E. (1989). Note-taking fosters generative learning

strategies in novices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 263–264.
[Link]

Stacy, E. M., & Cain, J. (2015). Note-taking and handouts in the digital
age. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(7), 107, 1–6.

Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by

viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-
provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–
820.

17
Suritsky, S. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1991). Benefits of notetaking: Implications
for secondary and postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 14, 7–18. [Link]

Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: enhancing

students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45, 203–215.
[Link]

Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students’ note taking: The effects of teacher

immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305–320.
[Link]

Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues

and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461.
[Link]

Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor:
Interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on
note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62(5), 507–528.
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of
note taking derived from their perceptions of note taking. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338. [Link]
0663.86.3.323

Wong, L. (2014). Essential study skills (8th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage
Learning.

Our research and publications benefitting the higher education community, are supported by charitable contributions.
Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to IDEA to sustain our research now and into the future.

18