Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 369-391

  Crooks, Steven M ^a   White, David R ^a   Barnard, Lucy ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36049043418     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.37.4.c     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Armel, D., & Shrock, S. A. (1996). The effects of required and optional computer-based note taking on. achievement and instructional completion time. Journal of Educational Computing Research 14(4), 329-344.
2. Blankenship, J., & Dansereau, D. F. (2000). The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 293-308.
3. Crooks, S. M., & Katayama, A. D. (2002). Effects of study note format on the comprehension of electronic text. Research in the Schools, 9, 21-32.
4. Crooks, S. M., Verdi, M. P., & White, D. R. (2005). Effects of contiguity and feature animation in computer-based geography instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 261-283.
5. Crooks, S. M., White, D. R., Srinivasan, S., & Wang, Q. (in press). Temporal, but not spatial, contiguity while studying an interactive geographic map.
6. DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8-14.
7. Hartley, J. (1983). Notetaking research: Resetting the scoreboard. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 36, 13-14.
8. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. B., & 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.
9. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. B., McCrudden, M., & Kauffman, D. (2003). Infogather: A tool for gathering and organizing information from the Web. In R. Bruning, C. Horn, & L. PytlikZilling (Eds.), Web based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 57-77). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
10. Katayama, A. D., & Crooks, S. M. (2001). Examining the effects of notetaking format on achievement when students construct and study computerized notes. The Learning Assistance Review, 6, 5-23.
11. Katayama, A. D., & Crooks, S. M. (2003). Online notes: Differential effects of studying complete or partial graphically organized notes. Journal of Experimental Education, 71(4), 293-312.
12. Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students partially involved in notetaking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119-133.
13. Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in Web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30( 1 &2), 139-161.
14. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: the encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147-172.
15. 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.
16. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christensen, M., Kim, S., & Lindberg, N. (1989) A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text.Instructional Science, 18, 217-232.
17. Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F., & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373-401.
18. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.
19. Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30, 242-262.
20. Koroghlanian, C. M., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Audio and text density in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(2), 217-230.
21. Lahtinen, V., Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies and the quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational Psycholog), 67, 13-24.
22. Lonka, K., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Maury, S. (1994). The effect, of study strategies on learning from text Learning and Instruction, 4, 253-271.
23. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
24. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psycholog)', 83, 484-490.
26. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
27. Mayer, R, E., Bove, W. Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73.
28. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390-397.
29. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Loun, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
30. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
31. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
32. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1.999). Maximizing constructivist learning from, multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638-643.
33. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 389-401.
34. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
35. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.
36. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal, redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156-163.
37. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Quade, A. M. (1995). A comparison of on-line and traditional paper and pencil notetaking methods during computer-delivered instruction. Proceedings of the Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, pp. 452-458.
39. Quade, A. M. (1996). An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional pencil and paper and an on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 560-570.
40. Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121-134.
41. Robinson, D. H., Corliss, S. B., Bush, A. M., Bera, S. J., & Tomberlin, T. (2003). Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites? Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 25-41.
42. Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Odom, S., Beth, A., Hsieh, Y. P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note-taking using a partial graphic organizer task. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 103-111.
43. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual, argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.
44. Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399-415.
45. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O'Dell, J. K. (1988). Obtaining more out of less text in CBI: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control, strategy. Educational Communications Technology Journal, 36(3), 131-142.
46. Ryan, M. T. (1982). Effects of paraphrase notetaking on prose learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1981. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(9-A), 3921 (UMI No. 820356).
47. Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1-20.
48. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
49. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351-362.
50. Trafton, J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 1-38.
51. Wiegmann, D. A., Dansereau, D. F., McCagg, E. C., Rewey, K. L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 136-155.