How should middle-school students with LD approach online note taking? a mixed-methods study

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 89-100

  Igo, L Brent ^a   Riccomini, Paul J ^a   Bruning, Roger H ^b   Pope, Ginger G ^c  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^c 407 B Tiliman Hall ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745296552     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/30035537     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and Informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439-444.
2. Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love.
3. Baddeley, A. (1998). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon.
4. Baguley, T., & Payne, S. J. (2000), Long-term memory for spatial temporal mental models includes construction processes and model structure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 53(2), 479-512.
5. Barlow, D. H. (2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. American Psychologist, 55, 1245-1263.
6. Beck, R. C. (2004). Motivation: Theories and principles. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
7. Blanchard, J. S. (1985). What to tell students about underlining ... and why. Journal of Reading, 29, 199-203.
8. Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of a strategic note-taking technique on the comprehension and long term recall of lecture information for high school students with LD. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 16(3), 125-133.
9. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak & F. I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 331-354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Cermak, L. & Craik, F. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). The NEW IDEA: CEC's summary of significant issues. Retrieved January 17, 2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/ IDEA_120204.pdf
12. Craik, F.I.M. (2000). Memory: Coding process. In A. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 671-684.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Deshler, D. D., Shumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., Clark, E. L., & Warner, M. M. (1981). Paraphrasing strategy. University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities (Contract No. 300-77-0494). Washington, DC: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.
17. Divesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8-14.
18. Divesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1973). Listening and note taking II. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278-287.
19. Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1987). A component analysis of effective learning strategies for LD students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2(2), 94-107.
20. Federal Register, 34 C. F. R. Parts 300 and 303 (1999).
21. Golding, J. M., & Fowler, S. B. (1992). The limited facilitative effect of typographical signals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 99-113.
22. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An inquiry into the functions of the septohipocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473-493.
24. Hughes, C. A., & Smith, J. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66-79.
25. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H., & McCrudden, M. (2005a). Exploring differences in students' copy and paste decision-making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 103-116.
26. Igo, L. B., Burning, R., & McCrudden, M. (2005b). Encoding disruption associated with copy and paste note taking. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds)., Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 107-119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
27. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., McCrudden, M., & Kauffman, D. F. (2003). InfoGather: A tool for gathering and organizing information from the web. In R. Bruning, C. Horn, & L. PytlikZillig (Eds.), Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 57-77): Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
28. 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.
29. Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students "partially" involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119-133.
30. Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating note taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23-32.
31. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of notetaking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 147-172.
32. Kiewra, K., Dubois, N., Christain, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.
33. Marxen, D. E. (1996). Why reading and underlining a passage is a less effective strategy than simply rereading the passage. Reading Improvement, 33, 88-96.
34. Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective Instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
35. Mayer, R. R. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Teaching for meaningful learning (Vol. II). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
36. McAndrew, D. A. (1983). Underlining and note taking: Some suggestions from research. Journal of Reading, 27, 103-108.
37. Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Neath, I. (1998). Human memory: An introduction to research, data, and theory. Pacific Grove, CA: Brook/ Cole.
40. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
41. Peterson, S. E. (1992). The cognitive functions of underlining as a study technique. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 49-56.
42. Poteet J. (1979). Characteristics of written expression of learning disabled and non-learning disabled elementary school students. Diagnostique, 4, 60-74.
43. Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. A. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 24-32.
44. Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340-352.
45. Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1-20.
46. Spiegel, G. F., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1994). The effects of a contribution of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 913-932.
47. Suritsky, S. K. (1992). Notetaking approaches and specific areas of difficulty reported by university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10(1), 3-10.
48. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Wade, S. E., & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of self-selected study methods on learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 40-47.