Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Rehearsal Strategy: Note Taking

This posting will focus on Steps One and Two of a Rehearsal Strategy when the Rehearsal Task uses Note Taking. When performing a Rehearsal Task that involves taking notes, students write about what is presented to them in lectures and textbooks, only some of which is target information. Taking notes during lectures is the sole learning method used by most high school and college students [1]. As many as 75 percent of college courses use lecture and text reading as the main methods of instruction [2]. The quality of students' notes (as indicated by the number of words, complex propositions, and main ideas recorded in notes) are correlated significant with students' ability to retrieve later the target information presented to them in lectures [3]. The greater the amount of target information the teacher presents in lectures over a certain period of time, the lower students' ability to retrieve it later from long-term memory [4]. Unfortunately, even though taking notes is associated with achievement, students who are poor note takers seem to have great difficulty improving the quality of the notes they take on their own [5].

When using lectures and textbooks and note taking as the primary method of instruction, what students actually learn depends on what teachers do while lecturing and what they do after lecturing. Teachers' instructional actions while lecturing constitute Step One of a Rehearsal Strategy, and teachers' instructional actions after lecturing constitute Step Two of a Rehearsal Strategy.

STEP ONE: ENCODE TARGET INFORMATION

During lectures teachers should focus students' attention on the target information, and help students distinguish it from the other information being presented that is intended to provide a meaningful context for the target information. For example, periodically during the lecture, the teacher might say, while referring to target information, "Now listen carefully to this, this is very important." [6]. Using written cues to focus students' attention on target information results in greater retention of that information than spoken cues do [7]. College students write in their notebooks between 88 percent and 95 percent of the words the teacher writes or shows on a screen or chalkboard [8]. Therefore, teachers should write or show target information, and summaries of it, on a screen or chalkboard. When presenting visual information, such as one portion of a map, the teacher can focus students' attention on the target information by making it more visually prominent than other information [9]. Teachers will have difficulty focusing students' attention on target information if they themselves are not clear about what they really want their students to learn, on what they consider to be the target information for a topic. One way teachers can identify the target information for a certain topic is to write an assessment task for it; the written exam teachers use in testing students about the topic. If information is important enough to be included in an exam for a topic then it must be the target information for the topic.

STEP TWO: PRACTICE RETRIEVING TARGET INFORMATION

After a lecture or an assigned reading, teachers should provide opportunities for students to identify, to repeat and to make more meaningful the target information that was presented. First, teachers should help students review the information in order to pick out the important target information, and to write any target information they have not already identified [10]. Second, teachers should help students relate the target information to their experiences and to previously learned information [11]. Third, teachers should help students generate questions about the target information, the kind of questions that might be on an exam [12]. Fourth, teachers should help students summarize the target information in their own words [13]. These procedures have been found effective in helping students learn mathematics [14], science [15], geography [16], economics [17], and reading comprehension [18].

___________________

1. (For example). Peper, R.J., Meyer, R.E. (1986). Generative effects of notetaking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 34-39. 2. Griffen, R.W., & Cashin, W.E. (1989). The lecture and discussion method for management education: Pros and cons. Journal of Management Development, 8, 25-32. 3. (For example). Einstein, G.O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Notetaking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522-532. 4. Aiken, E.F., Thomas, G.S., & Shennum, W.A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lectures, and informational density Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439-444. 5. Bretzing, B.H., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Note-taking and passage style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 242-250. 6. Kiewa, K.A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychological Review, 1, 147-172. 7. Scerbo, M.W., Warm, J.S., Dember, W.N., & Grasha, A.F. (1992). The role of time and cuing in a college lecture. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 312-328. 8. Locke, E.A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 93-99. 9. (For example). Schwartz, N.H. (1988). Cognitive processing characteristics of maps: Implications for instruction. Educational and Psychological Research, 8(2). 93-102. 10. DiVesta, F.J., & Gray, S.G. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8-14. 11. (For example). Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavel & E.M. Markman (Eds,, Handbook of child psychology(Vol. 3). pp. 77-166. 12. Davey, B. & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256-262. 13. (For example). Carrier, C.A., & Titus, A. (1981). Effects of note-taking pretraining and test mode expectations on learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 385-397. 14. Peled, Z. & Wittrock;, M.C. (1990). Generated meanings in the comprehension of world problems in mathematics. Instructional Science, 19, 171-205. 15. Osborne, R.J., & Wittrock, M.C. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87. 16. MacKenzie, A.W., & White, R.T. (1982) Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structure. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 623-632. 17. Kourilsky, M.L., & Wittrock. M.C. (1992). Generative teaching: An enhancement strategy for the learning of economics in cooperative groups. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 821-876. 18. Wittrock, M.C., Marks, C.B., & Doctorow, M.J. (1975). Reading as a generative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 484-489.










No comments:

Post a Comment