Download pdf - How college science students engage in note-taking strategies

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 43, NO. 8, PP. 786–818 (2006)

How College Science Students Engage in Note-Taking Strategies

Janice M. Bonner,1 William G. Holliday2

1College of Notre Dame of Maryland, 4701 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21210

2University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

Received 31 December 2004; Accepted 31 May 2005

Abstract: A composite theory of college science student note-taking strategies was derived from a

periodic series of five interviews with 23 students and with other variables, including original and final

versions of notes analyzed during a semester-long genetics course. This evolving composite theory was

later compared with Van Meter, Yokoi, and Pressley’s (Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338,

1994) corresponding composite ‘‘college students’ theory of note-taking.’’ Students’ notes in this long-term

study were also compared with a standard of ‘‘adequate’’ note-taking established by experts. Analyses

detected many similarities between the two composite theories. Analyses also provided evidence of

inadequate note-taking strategies, inconsistencies between what students claimed and evidently did with

their notes, and weak self-regulating learning strategies. Recommendations included prompting students

during class on how to take notes. � 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 43: 786–818, 2006

In this study, the researchers developed a composite set of beliefs held by a group of college

science students concerning their note-taking strategies and compared it with the seminal work of

VanMeter, Yokoi, and Pressley (1994). VanMeter’s team, subsequent to analyzing a series of five

interviews with 252 college students, developed a ‘‘college students’ theory of note-taking,’’

derived from students’ beliefs about note-taking. Researchers in the present study determined how

extensively the participants’ set of note-taking beliefs was implemented in a semester-long

genetics course. Data were derived frommany sources, including students’ notes (both after each

lecture class and again at the end of the semester), their markings in course textbooks, and

interviews with the professor teaching the target genetics course. A comparison was made

between what students said about how they took notes and evidence about what they actually did

with their notes in preparing for course examinations. Notes written by the 23 participants were

assessed in terms of what two experienced biology teachers believed to be reasonable notes

covering seven genetics concepts presented in the course, referred to as adequate representations.

The data generated in this study were assessed in terms of selected components of the

Correspondence to: J.M. Bonner; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20115

Published online 24 July 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

self-regulated learning theory (Schunk, 2005; Zimmerman, 1989, 1998). Thus, the rationale for

this study is to build on the previous work of VanMeter et al. (1994) and other researchers, to seek

clarification about how students take notes and what collected evidence suggests about the way

students use their notes, and to compare a sampling of students’ notes with an ‘‘adequate

representation’’ of notes.

Note-Taking

Note-taking, a nearly ubiquitous classroom practice, is a popular learning strategy among

science students and is often encouraged by teachers. The goal perhaps is to help students record,

clarify, organize, and comprehend information highlighted during lectures rather than merely

depend on their memories and, thus, enhance preparation for and performance on course tests. A

recent survey of 5728 science and mathematics teachers in the USA found that 86% of students in

high school biology classes listen to lectures and take notes at least once aweek (Weiss, 2002). The

strategy is apparently practiced, although to a lesser degree, in middle and elementary schools—

54% and 15%, respectively (Weiss, 2001, Table 5.6). If a similar survey were administered to

college science instructors, it would perhaps produce rates higher than the 86% reported by high

school science teachers (see Palmatier & Bennett, 1974).

Early note-taking literature grew out of the pedagogical question of whether a student would

be better served by taking notes or merely listening attentively in class. Some early studies

suggested that note-taking had positive benefits for the student. Crawford (1925a, 1925b)

administered postlecture quizzes to subjects, some of whom had taken notes during a short lecture

and others who had not. He concluded that students who took notes performed better on follow-up

quizzes than students who did not take notes, especially if their notes were clear and specific.

Eisner and Rohde (1959), on the other hand, concluded that students did not necessarily benefit

from taking notes. In their study, subjects listened to a short lecture. Half of them took notes during

the lecture and the other half immediately following it. Results of quizzes on the lecture material

showed no significant difference between the two settings for the taking of notes.

Landmark studies by DiVesta and Gray (1972, 1973) expanded the pattern of back-and-forth

conclusions about the efficacy of note-taking to consider the actual role played by the strategy,

specifically whether notes are more valuable as a source of information for later reference or as a

method bywhich students can translate information into their own understanding. As DiVesta and

Gray’s subjects listened to a set of short passages, some were permitted to take notes and others

were not. Subjects who had taken notes performed significantly better on both a recall test and a

multiple-choice test. DiVesta and Gray suggested that note-taking, rather than interfering with

learning as had been hypothesized by some earlier researchers, actually enhanced the ability of the

student to recognize and organize important information.

Subsequent investigators began to approach note-taking in the framework established by

DiVesta andGray—that is, either as a process of recording information in class or as a product that

could be reviewed afterward. The work of Carter and Van Matre (1975) suggested the former. In

their study, college students listened to a short lecture, some taking notes and others not doing so.

Subjects were then provided a short period in which to either reread their notes or to mentally

review the lecture. Theywere then administered a test, either immediately after the review or after

a delay. On the delayed test, the only subjects who performed better were those who had taken

notes and then reviewed them. Carter and Van Matre concluded that taking notes was not as

beneficial to the student as having notes. Alternatively, Peper and Mayer (1978) believed that

actually taking notes was of more benefit than merely having them. In their study, subjects were

divided into note-takers and non–note-takers and then shown a short video. Afterwards, theywere

COLLEGE STUDENTS’ NOTE-TAKING STRATEGIES 787

given a set of two types of problems: some required them to generate a solution to a problem

related to the video and others required them to interpret information included in the video. In

measures of retention and recall, note-takers performed no differently than non–note-takers.

Peper and Mayer did find that note-takers, especially those of lower ability, recalled more

conceptual idea units, and non–note-takers recalled more technical idea units. They concluded

that note-taking may help students to connect the lecture content with their prior knowledge.

Kiewra (1985) summarized investigations that had been conducted along the note-taking as

process/notes as product front. Of the 29 studies that had explored the process function of note-

taking, two thirds suggested that note-taking was a positive strategy compared with listening. In

addition, of the 18 studies that had examined the product role, two thirds reported that having notes

and reviewing them is better than either not having notes or not reviewing them.

Although the process/product debate continued, some researchers began to ask different

questions—for example, about the content and format of notes taken by students. Einstein,Morris,

and Smith (1985) sought to determine what students put into their notes. In their study, subjects

either took notes during a short videotaped lecture or merely listened to it; afterwards, they were

asked to record everything that they remembered. Note-takers recalled significantly more high-

importance concepts from the video than non–note-takers. Moreover, their notes included

significantly more high-importance ideas than either medium- or low-importance ideas. In

addition, subjects later recalled a greater percentage of those ideas that they recorded in their

notes. Einstein et al. concluded that note-taking apparently encourages students to process

information in a qualitatively better way. Kiewra et al. (1991), in addition to directing subjects to

either take notes or not take notes during a short video, instructed subjects to take notes in a

particular style: linear (completing an outline of the lecture); matrix; or conventional. Subjects

were administered a recall test and a synthesis test either immediately after the lecture or after a

short review period. Subjects who took notes and reviewed them performed best on both types of

test. There was no significant difference among the types of notes.

Some studies of note-taking set out to capture what undergraduate students actually think

about the strategy, primarily through surveys or questionnaires. Palmatier and Bennett (1974)

distributed a survey to 223 undergraduates. Ninety-nine percent of the subjects responded that

they took notes during lecture (even a few who stated that they did not think note-taking was

helpful) and 71% said they did so when they read. There appeared to be no relationship between

students’ course grades and their note-taking practice. Carrier,Williams, andDalgaard (1988) also

surveyed college students by administering the Note-Taking Perceptions Survey, which asks

questions about perceptions of the worth of note-taking, levels of note-taking activity, and

confidence in note-taking skills. The researchers concluded that women respondents valued notes

more highly, utilized notes more, and were more confident of their ability to take good notes than

men. Moreover, their study suggested that final course grade was predicted by a student’s note-

taking confidence.

Most recently, note-taking research has been integrated with listening and reading

comprehension strategies. In this regard, leading reading researchers (Guthrie & Anderson,

1999; Ogle & Blachowicz, 2002; Pressley & McCormick, 1995; Pressley, 2002; Vacca & Vacca,

2002) recommended that teachers train students how to take notes and to engage in other strategies

while reading or listening about information. Although some students are taught specific note-

takingmethods (Stahl, King,&Henk, 1991)—for example, the CornellMethod, theUnifiedNote-

taking System (Palmatier, 1971), or the Verbatim Split Page Method—most students are not

instructed in any note-taking methods at all (Van Meter et al., 1994).

All of the described note-taking studies typically were conducted as isolated events—

snapshots of the note-taking process. Moreover, they were not situated in naturalistic settings, but

788 BONNER AND HOLLIDAY

in contrived contexts. Finally, they involved notes, textual material, and test questions that had

little or no bearing on students’ personal academic success and for which they had little academic

accountability. Therefore, the research design of these studies may have prevented investigators

from capturing what really occurs both in the lecture hall and at the study carrel. Such earlier

published studies, of course, contributed to our understanding of note-taking and provided

researchers with a foundation to move beyond contrived experiments. Furthermore, although

surveys such as those described may provide helpful information about how students view note-

taking, the survey format also has definite limitations because it frequently superimposes choices

on students, limiting their freedom of response.

VanMeter et al. (1994), believing that amore complex student-centered theory of note-taking

was a prerequisite to any understanding of the process, conducted a series of ethnographic

interviews of 252 undergraduates from which they developed the seminal ‘‘college students’

theory of note-taking’’ (CSTN). Because of its methodological thoroughness and analytical

insightfulness, the CSTN stands as perhaps the most explicit development of undergraduate

beliefs about a key academic strategy. It expands both educators’ and investigators’ understanding

of note-taking and suggests future research directions.

The CSTN (VanMeter et al., 1994) can be matched with extant note-taking research on three

tracks. First, in numerous aspects, it was consistent with the extant note-taking literature. Van

Meter’s participants reported that they almost always took notes during class lectures, and

discussed contextual factors that affected their ability to take good notes, particularly the lecture

style of the instructor (fast or slow, organized or disorganized). Van Meter’s participants had

definite opinions about the details they incorporated into lecture notes and about how these details

were best organized. They also discussed how they adapted note-taking strategies based on an

assessment of test performance. Van Meter’s participants described the key role played by prior

knowledge related to the course, their increased proficiency in taking notes as they progressed

through college, and their commitment to taking and keeping good notes. Their participants also

described methods they used to process notes after class and the conditions under which they used

notes to study and do homework. Second, the CSTN included considerations that previously had

not been a part of researchers’ understanding of note-taking. Van Meter’s participants report-

ed that, while their primary goal in taking notes was success in the course, they also considered

subgoals, such as staying attentive in class and having a tool that could be used later for homework

assignments. The students also reported that their note-taking style evolvedmost often in hard-to-

take-notes courses that placed the greatest demands on note-taking skills. Apparently, neither of

these two aspects of note-taking had been revealed by prior research. Third, in at least one area,

whether notes are paraphrased or taken verbatim, the CSTN contradicted existing note-taking

literature, which had suggested that paraphrased notes implied a higher degree of information

processing than notes taken verbatim. Van Meter’s participants explained that they consciously

selected either verbatim or paraphrased notes, depending on cognitive demands of the course,

sometimes choosing word-for-word notes if they were not sure of the message of the instructor.

Self-Regulated Learning

Note-taking is one of a group of strategies that can be used to predict with a high degree of

accuracy a student’s membership in either a higher achievement or lower achievement academic

track (Zimmerman&Martinez-Pons, 1988). The self-regulation of these strategies is described as

taking place over three phases that occur cyclically (Paris & Paris, 2001; Zimmerman, 1998):

forethought; then the actual academic performance; and then self-reflection. Forethought is the

time before performance during which the student draws connections between task analysis and


self-motivation. It is during forethought that the actions of goal setting and strategic planning are

integrated with the beliefs of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interest in the task, and goal

orientation. During the second phase, performance, there is an opportunity for more interaction as

the student focuses on strategies that facilitate both concentrating on the task and monitoring

various aspects of the performance. The third phase is self-reflection. Here, the student evaluates

the performance and assigns causal significance to the results; the student also responds with

satisfaction or dissatisfaction to the performance and decides whether to change the performance

in the future. Based on current literature, therefore, a self-regulated note-taker would approach an

academic situation—for example, a new course—already armed with strategies and goals

developed during the forethought phase. This note-taker would constantly adjust the note-taking

process as the semester progressed, and would assess the success of themodifications at the end of

the course.

College students are frequently described (e.g., Nelson, Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens, 1994) as

competent self-regulated learners. It is possible, however, that the self-regulatory skills of this

group have been overestimated because of the nature and context of the evaluative tasks (Pressley

& Ghatala, 1988, 1990). In fact, college students’ performance on tests may be more strongly

connected to note-taking and prior knowledge than to self-regulatory skills (Peverly, Brobst,

Graham,&Shaw, 2003). To assist college students in their development as self-regulated learners,

Zimmerman and Paulsen (1995) suggested that students be taught self-monitoring strategies,

particularly when they are trying to understand difficult reading material or to develop new skills

outside their collegemajor, and that faculty incorporate such instruction in their classes. Hofer,Yu,

and Pintrich (1994) suggested that undergraduates are well-served by a program that provides

them with a variety of clearly targeted strategies—cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational—

but does not overload them with options. On the other hand, Paris and Paris (2001) suggested that

students would benefit from an on-going discussion of academic challenges and how to address

them even more than from an overt presentation that matches particular strategies to particular

concepts.

VanMeter et al. (1994) established that undergraduate students have a definite theory of note-

taking—they can ‘‘talk the talk.’’ Since then, little research in science education has been done to

study note-taking or to link it with self-regulation. In particular, a recent survey of major

research journals in science education (specifically, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

Science Education, and International Journal of Science Education) failed to uncover basic

work investigating note-taking by students enrolled in science courses at any school or college

level.

Questions addressed by the present study include the following. Was the note-taking

theory of students in this study comparable to Van Meter et al.’s (1994) ‘‘college students’

theory of note-taking’’ (CSTN)? How did college students apply their theory (i.e., beliefs or

notions) about note-taking as they experienced the challenges of a demanding genetics

course—in short, did they ‘‘walk the walk’’? These questions were addressed by interviewing

students and by examining their learning materials and other factors linked to the semester-

long science course.

The current study differs from traditional note-taking research in three ways. It was

longitudinal in nature, enabling the researchers to follow individual students throughout an entire

academic semester. It was situated in an actual academic course, thereby having an added

naturalistic dimension—a situation approaching an authentic classroom condition and its implied

responsibilities and tensions. Finally, this study explored students’ theory of note-taking aswell as

their application of that theory in their course notes and, to a lesser degree, in their course

textbooks.


Method

To uncover participants’ theory of note-taking, students were interviewed five times over the

semester, producingnearly100 hours of total interview time and600pages of transcripts. To observe

how participants applied their theory of note-taking, their notebooks were analyzed after each class

period and again at the end of the semester, producing almost 2500 pages of students’ notebooks. In

addition, participants’ textbooks and course tests were analyzed, producing another 400 pages of

data. Data were gathered and analyzed using the qualitative technique of analytic induction to build

patterns of similarities and differences among participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; LeCompte,

Millroy, & Preissle, 1992). Researchers inspected evidence-based documents and came to

consensus.Disputes between researcherswere negotiatedby appeal to evidence in the data gathered.

Participants

Students enrolled in a 300-level genetics course at a private, liberal arts college for women

were invited to participate in a semester-long study of note-taking strategies. The genetics course

was a required course in the biologymajor, usually taken by students in their third year following a

100-level introductory course, three 200-level organismal courses (selected from among botany,

invertebrate zoology, microbiology, and vertebrate anatomy), and four semesters of general and

organic chemistry. Interviews with six instructors residing in the biology and chemistry

departments suggested that instructors of these courses generally presumed that students took

notes in class and used notes to study and complete homework. None of the instructors reportedly

included formal training in note-taking in their classes.

The genetics coursewas chosen for two reasons. Thefirst reasonwasmore discipline-based—

genetics lies at the heart of contemporary biology. Students must understand and apply principles

of genetics as they relate to the cell, to the molecular basis of heredity, and to evolution (National

Research Council, 1996). The second reason was more curriculum-based—the learning of

genetics is often considered difficult for students at many levels of schooling because of the

conceptual integration that is required (Baker & Lawson, 2001; Lewis &Wood-Robinson, 2000;

Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000). Within the biology curriculum of the institution at which this

studywas conducted, genetics is the first upper-level course taken bymost biologymajors, serving

often as a gateway to more demanding theoretical and analytical 300- and 400-level biology

courses. In addition, more than 12 years of academic advising at the institution by the first author

suggested that the genetics coursewould provide a situation that challenged participants’ ability to

take good notes. Participants corroborated these opinions in later interviews.

Twenty-three of 32 students enrolled in the genetics course (72%) participated in this study.

The average age of participants was 20.7 years (SD¼ 0.77). Six identified themselves as African

American. One student identified English as her second language. Participants’ mean aptitude

scores were 490 (SD¼ 64) on the verbal section of the SAT (VSAT), and 458 (SD¼ 71) on the

mathematics section of the SAT (MSAT).At the beginning of the semester, participants had earned

an overall college GPA of 3.19 (SD¼ 0.34) and a combined GPA of 3.06 (SD¼ 0.41) in science

and math courses required for biology majors.

The course instructor, Dr. Frank Bradshaw (all names are pseudonyms), holds a doctoral

degree inmolecular genetics. Hewas a tenure-track facultymember of the biology department and

had taught genetics at the institution for 5 years.

Lecture Setting

The genetics class met for a 50-minute lecture three times a week. The tiered classroom in

which the class was held could accommodate 60 students in traditional college arm-chairs.


Students apparently had reasonable room to take notes comfortably.Many students were observed

using two desks, one for the notebook and another for the textbook. The instructor usually stood in

front of the classroom and used an overhead projector throughout his lecture. His lecture style

might be characterized as conversational and moderately paced, and included time for student

questions, according to comments made by interviewed participants. The genetics course also

included a weekly 3-hour laboratory session that was not explicitly included in the study.

Participant Interviews

Five rounds of semistructured interviews of the 23 participants were spaced throughout the

semester (Figure 1). The average participant compliance was 81%. The first interview, conducted

with each of the 23 participants during the first week of the semester, was designed to establish the

baseline note-taking beliefs of participants. Participantswere presented an adaptation of questions

used by Van Meter et al. (1994). Questions were modified to maximize their theoretical

effectiveness in eliciting information from participants. The following questions represent the

nature of the actual questions (see Appendix):

� What do you consider good notes? Bad notes?

� What are the characteristics of your notes?

� Do your course notes change over the semester?

The second interview was conducted during the fifth week of the course, immediately before

Exam 1. The third interview was conducted during the eighth week of the semester, at about its

midpoint. The fourth interview was conducted during weeks 11 and 12, straddling Exam 2. Each

of these rounds of interviews (second, third, and fourth) used a series of questions, slightly

different for each round, that dealt with each participant’s perception of her academic progress, her

goals, and her note-taking strategies. For example, participants were asked:

� Have you done anything in the genetics course to change the way you take notes?

� How did you know what to do?

� What has been the most difficult part of the course for you so far?

� Have you done anything differently to take notes in that part of the course?

� How do you use your textbook in a course?

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the alignment of the components of the genetics course with the

present study.


After participants completed the final examination, the fifth and final interview was

conducted. Participants were asked such questions as:

� How did you use your notes to prepare for the final exam?

� What did you learn about yourself as a student in taking this genetics course?

Two interviews were conducted with Dr. Bradshaw, at the beginning and again at the end of

the semester.

All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were broken into single-topic

informational units, and those that referred to note-taking were extracted. These units were then

divided into categories, referenced across the 23 participants, and collapsed into a composite

matrix that summarized what participants said they did with their notes and their textbook in the

genetics course.

Participant interviews were situated within the conceptual framework of the CSTN (Van

Meter et al., 1994). The theorywas outlined andmatchedwith corresponding beliefs derived from

participant interviews. A participant’s name was recorded under an aspect of note-taking—for

example, highlighting, use of color, or use of bullets—only if she specifically mentioned that

aspect during an interview. Therefore, if a participant stated that she rewrote her notes after each

class, her name was recorded in this category; however, if a participant did not state that she used

color in her notes, her name was not recorded, even if her notes included the use of color.

Instructor Materials

Dr. Bradshaw provided the researchers with the followingmaterials from the genetics course:

his lecture material for the course (180 hand-written overhead transparencies from which he

lectured); the entire set of overhead transparencies of diagrams and figures produced by the

publisher of the course text (Russell, 1998) that he incorporated into his lectures; a copy of each

participant’s three exams (corrected and graded) and both midterm and final grades; and a copy of

the floppy disk that he distributed to each student enrolled in the course. This disk contained the

textual information from the hand-written overhead transparencies used in his lectures.

Information on this disk is subsequently referred to as the transparency transcript. It is important

to note that Dr. Bradshaw stated to the class that he did not envision the material on the floppy disk

distributed to students to be formal lecture notes, as characterized and described in both

pedagogical and research literature (e.g., in Stencel, 2003). Instead, he frequently reminded

students that the information on the disk should only be viewed as a starting point for writing a

good set of notes for his genetics course.

Participant Notebooks

Participants’ notebooks were collected by researchers at the end of each lecture class period.

Notebook pages of each participant for each day were photocopied; highlighting and other uses of

color were replicated on the photocopies. Notebooks were returned to participants within an hour

following each class lecture. These notes are subsequently referred to as the original notes.

Although not every participant left her notes after every lecture, there was a 69% compliance

rate. At the end of the semester, 20 participants (86%) shared their notebooks with the researchers.

These notebooks were photocopied in their entirety, and use of color was replicated on the copies.

These notes are subsequently referred to as the final notes.


To facilitate an examination of participants’ notes, a two-part checklist was developed: for the

89 tables and figures located in the course textbook that Dr. Bradshaw referenced during his

lectures and for traces of physical characteristics that participants used to describe their notes (e.g.,

use of color, underlining, and references to diagrams). Figureswere included as part of the analysis

because, frequently, in discussions of science, they traditionally play a crucial role in the

understanding of concepts, often used as representations of ideas (McGinn & Roth, 1999). The

physical characteristics of notes were, in themajority of instances, the same as thosementioned by

students in the Van Meter et al. (1994) study.

Both the original notes (the version obtained following the class lecture) and the final notes

(the version submitted at the end of the course) were analyzed, using the two-part checklist. To

establish reliability of the evaluation of participants’ notes, a randomly selected sample of seven

notebooks (both original and final versions) and the accompanying two-part checklist were

provided to a member of the biology faculty for analysis. The percentage of agreement in the

analysis of specific tables and figures was 96%; in the analysis of identifying physical

characteristics, it was 93%. Differences were easily resolved.

Because Van Meter et al.’s (1994) students claimed that they adjusted their note-taking

strategies based on their test performance, researchers used the placement of the three course tests

to divide the course. Based on this division of the course, each set of notes was also split into three

parts, each corresponding to one of the three time segments of the course: prior to Exam 1

(Weeks 1–5); betweenExam1 andExam2 (Weeks 6–11); and betweenExam2 and the final exam

(Weeks 12–14). Two matrices—one for original notes and another for final notes—were

developed for each of the three course segments to summarizewhat participants’ notes looked like

at each of these stages in the course.

Finally, to facilitate a more thorough content analysis of participant notes, seven genetics

topics were selected from the course notes based on two criteria: placement in the semester and

biological content important to an understanding of undergraduate genetics. The course syllabus

indicated, and dates provided in student notes verified, that each topic was the focus of at least one

50-minute lecture period. The seven topics included branch diagrams, the highly similar concepts

of epistasis/expressivity/penetrance/pleiotropy, the experimental work of Griffith, the experi-

mental work of Creighton and McClintock, the experimental work of Meselson and Stahl,

production ofmRNA in transcription, and translation in eukaryotes. For each of the seven topics, a

set of notes was developed, based on what the researchers believed was reasonable notes for an

understanding of the concept. These reasonable notes were not prepared during the class lectures,

as were the participants’ notes, but they reflect what Dr. Bradshaw stated he had covered in the

lecture. Because the instructor did not regard the transparency transcript as formal class notes,

substantial supplementation and reformatting were sometimes necessary to produce notes that

would adequately explain the concept.

For example, the transparency transcript for one of seven topics, the Meselson–Stahl

experiment discussed toward the middle of the semester, is shown in its entirety in Figure 2.

Researchers decided that a satisfactory set of student notes for the Meselson–Stahl experiment

DNA REPLICATION

MESELSON-STAHL EXPERIMENT

Equilibrium density gradient centrifugation

DNA will come to equilibrium (float) where its buoyant density equals the density of the surrounding CsCl

Figure 2. Section of transparency transcript for Meselson–Stahl experiment.


should include the following information: (1) the three hypothesized models of DNA replication;

(2) details regarding the protocol followed by Meselson and Stahl, specifically the growth of

bacteria in two different nitrogen isotopes, removal of bacteria from the culture at various times

during the experiment, and differential centrifugation of the bacteria; (3) details regarding the

results obtained byMeselson and Stahl, specifically the patterns formed by the centrifuged DNA;

and (4)Meselson and Stahl’s interpretation of their results, connecting back to the three originally

hypothesizedmodels.Moreover, these points were all addressed byDr. Bradshaw, as confirmed by

interview.

The seven sets of notes were provided to another member of the biology department, familiar

with genetics, for cross-validation. After discussion, a final draft of these notes was constructed

and agreed on for each of the seven topics. It was assumed that the seven sets of notes developed by

the expert biologists theoretically would provide a student with reasonable information for

understanding each topic. The sets of notes for the seven designated genetics concepts are

subsequently referred to as the adequate representation. The adequate representation was seen by

the researchers primarily as a standard towhich the notes of all the participants could be compared

and, therefore, compared with each other.

To quantify the thoroughness of each participant’s notes, an assessment system was

developed to compare each participant’s notes with the adequate representation for each of the

sevendesignated topics. Apoint valuewas assigned to each part of the satisfactory notes, and a raw

score was determined for each set of participant notes. This was then converted to a percentage

value that was referred to as the percentage of adequate representation. This analysis was

conducted for the seven designated topics in both the original and the final version of each

participant’s notes. To establish reliability of the evaluation of percentage of adequate

representation, a randomly selected sample of seven student notebooks (both original and final

versions)was assessed by the first author and anothermember of the biology faculty. Percentage of

agreement among the assessors was estimated to be 88%. Of course, these calculated adequate

representation values represent estimates rather than exact proportions of elements deemed

critical by the biologists. Moreover, because each student in a genetics class has different prior

knowledge, cognitive traits, and motivational attributes, and because each student processes

information differently, there is no practical way to establish an absolute standard of perfect

validity relative to the adequate representation, given the delimitations of such an exploratory

study.

Participant Textbooks

In the CSTN (Van Meter et al., 1994), students stated in the interviews that their course

textbook played a role in their academic strategies, especially in more difficult and hard-to-take-

notes courses. At the end of the semester, 14 students (61%) agreed to share their course textbook,

Russell’s Genetics (1998), a text used routinely in undergraduate genetics courses. Because the

instructor required the most recent edition (fifth) of the textbook, all but three of the students had

purchased their text as new. Those owning used texts reported that they were either unmarked or

minimally marked at the time of purchase.

Each textbook was analyzed along two lines: for suggestions that participants had referred

to figures and tables, and for suggestions that they had read the actual text. First, because

Dr. Bradshaw’s lecture notes included the publisher-produced overhead transparencies that he

incorporated into his lectures, it was possible for the researchers to generate a list of these figures

and tables. Textbooks were then surveyed to determine which (if any) of the 89 figures and tables

referenced byDr. Bradshaw in lectureweremarked in someway by the selected participant, and in


what manner. Second, the 11 chapters of each participant’s text that were covered in the genetics

course, a total of 380 pages, were examined, and an inventory was developed for each participant

that listed pages of her textbook (if any) that she had marked in some manner. To establish

reliability of the evaluation of textbooks, a randomly selected sample of seven participant

textbooks from the 14 available was assessed by a member of the biology faculty. Percentage of

agreement in the analysis of figures and tables between the two raters was 97%. The percentage of

agreement in the survey of the textbook chapters was 95%.

Although the researchers recognized that participant annotation of a textbook did not

necessarily imply that a participant had used her textbook, they hypothesized that such annotation

perhaps could provide some rudimentary evidence of a ‘‘thought trail.’’ Therefore, a comparison

was made between the list of figures and tables mentioned in each participant’s notes and those

actually marked in some manner in her textbook. A table of textbook use was developed that

summarized each participant’s use of her textbook within each of the three course segments.

Finally, these three tables were collapsed into a single composite matrix that summarized what

participants’ textbooks looked like at the end of this semester-long genetics course. Because the

textbooks were only collected at the end of the semester, there was no way to determine when the

textbooks had been marked.

Results

A composite theory of note-taking beliefs held by participants in the current study was first

compared with VanMeter et al.’s (1994) CSTN. An analysis of participants’ note-taking was also

conducted.

Comparison of Participants’ Theory of Note-Taking With Van Meter’s Theory

VanMeter et al. (1994) derived the CSTN from the statements about note-taking expressed in

interviews by students in their study. Similarly, participants in the present study presented their

beliefs about note-taking in interviews. These beliefs constituted the material from which their

theory of note-takingwas developed. As in theVanMeter study, participants in this studywere not

simply administered a questionnaire to solicit their note-taking beliefs but were individually

interviewed. Each participant was credited for adhering to a particular aspect of note-taking

theory—for example, use of color, underlining, or bullets—only if she specifically mentioned the

point during an interview. Even within these restrictions, however, there appeared to be a high

degree of similarity between the students in this study and those in Van Meter’s study.

Participants’ theory of note-taking was generally similar to Van Meter’s (1994) CSTN in

numerous ways, although direct comparisons of data between this study and Van Meter’s are

impossible. First, the CSTN had corroborated existing note-taking literature in several aspects.

Participants in the present study held similar beliefs. Specifically, 91% of participants stated that

they always or usually took notes in class. Eighty-seven percent described an instructor’s pace,

organization, or cues as characteristics that affected their ability to take good notes. Seventy-eight

percent of participants stated that they attempted to organize lecturematerial as they entered it into

their notes. Ninety-six percent claimed that their note-taking skills had improved during their

years in college. Sixty-one percent explained that their prior knowledge in a course affected their

ability to take notes. All participants stated that they engaged in some form of postclass processing

of their notes. Second, the CSTN included aspects of note-taking that had not been revealed by

prior research, such as having multiple goals for taking notes and the relationship between the

difficulty of the course and adaptations in note-taking. In the present study, 87% of participants


described having multiple goals for taking notes. In the initial interview, however, no participant

suggested the course difficulty/note-taking connection. (Again, it should be mentioned that

participants’ views were derived from what they initiated in interviews, not from a questionnaire

that provided them with options from which to choose. This lack of comments regarding the

connection was predictive of participants’ future outcomes in the semester.) Finally, the CSTN

contradicted existing note-taking literature by stating that students consciously decided either to

take notes verbatim or to paraphrase. About half of participants in this study explained that they

attempted to copy notes in a verbatim fashion to ensure fidelity of whatwas said by the teacher; the

other half of the participants paraphrased what the teacher said, reportedly to ensure that they

understood the teacher’s explanations.

Application of Participants’ Theory of Note-Taking

A foremost consideration prior to the analysis of participants’ note-taking was their

perception of the effect of using the transparency transcript on the note-taking process.

Participants generally did not view their use of the transparency transcript as a liabilitywhen asked

if their progress in the course would have been different if they had taken notes on their own.

‘‘That’s what I started out doing [at the beginning of the semester],’’ one student explained,

‘‘because I thought it would be better if I wrote it [out for myself] because I learn a lot better [that

way]. But hewas going too fast. I couldn’t even get all the notes down’’ (JR; 5; 47–48).1Moreover,

she thought she would probably have taken her own notes in ‘‘basically the same format [as the

transparency transcript]’’ (JR; 5; 49), so she would have had to make the same adaptations to her

studying technique whether she had used her own notes or the transcript. Other participants

generally concurred, reporting that they used the transparency transcript as a general outline that

they filled in during lecture or in reading the text. This conclusion is supported by the notes of the

only student who did not use the transparency transcript at all. Her average percentage of adequate

representation value for the three designated passages in the first course segment was 39%,

compared with the class average of 31%; her average adequate representation value for the three

passages in the second course segment was 44%, compared with the class average of 43%. Only

her final passage, scored at 80% of adequate representation, differed appreciably from the class

average of 25%.

Participants’ application of their theory of note-taking was observed by studying their

notebooks and textbooks. This examination indicated that participants did not apply their theory of

note-taking as consistently as their interviews suggested. The inconsistencies were revealed in

three major areas: (1) their description of ‘‘good notes’’; (2) their claim that they could easily

recognize and adjust to the direction in which a professor was leading a course; and (3) their claim

that they modified their note-taking according to the demands of the course.

Identifying ‘‘Good Notes’’

In the first week of the course, Josie described how she took good notes. ‘‘I don’t take down

[isolated] words’’; she stated:

I write down complete phrases, almost complete sentences. It’s what helps me to

remember. And if I write down the whole thing, I’m always thinking about what I know

and what I’m talking about when I go back and read them. (JR; 1; 14–16)

Other participants agreed that ‘‘good notes’’should be accurate, complete, and organized, and

provided detailed descriptions of how they accomplished these goals. A review of Josie’s notes for


the first course segment told a somewhat different story, however. Her notes included no complete

sentences and no complete phrases. By her own definition, Josie began the course with notes that

she could not use. Shewas not unusual in either her insistence that she knewhow to take good notes

or in the discrepancy between her beliefs and their application; arguably, shewas representative of

the group.

Attention to accuracy. The need for accurate notes was mentioned frequently by participants.

One participant, for example, declared that ‘‘a good set of notes should be exactly what was

taught’’ (US; 1; 5).

Whereas participants’ interviews emphasized the importance of accurate notes, an

examination of these notes suggested that the theory was not always applied. Specifically, this

analysis of the evidence focused on the inspection of the designated topic of branch diagramming,

an algorithmic operation commonly used as a short cut to solve some Mendelian genetics

problems. The actual details of the branch diagram were presented during lecture on a

transparency, showing the sample cross as ‘‘Ss� Ss.’’ Because the lower case ‘‘s’’ was written on

the lecture transparency in script with a long tail, all but one participant (n¼ 17)2 miscopied the

sample representation as ‘‘Sp� Sp’’ rather than as ‘‘Ss� Ss.’’ When participants continued

mistakenly to use ‘‘p’’ instead of ‘‘s’’ in the elaboration of the genetic makeup of the offspring

from the cross, the information theywrote failed tomake genetic sense. Yet such errors apparently

were not realized by participants, even though many of them continued to comment on their

inability to understand branch diagramming. For some participants, this confusion extended

throughout the semester, up to their preparation for the final exam. None of the participants

included a correction of this erroneous substitution of ‘‘Sp’’ for ‘‘Ss’’ in the final version of her

notes. The difficulty could have been easily addressed if participants did what they said they

frequently did—return to their textbook for conceptual clarification. For example, Figure 2.12 in

the text (Russell, 1998, p. 28), the same figure that Dr. Bradshaw used in class to teach the concept

of branch diagramming, clearly shows that the cross is ‘‘Ss� Ss.’’

Attention to completeness. Participants declared that they did not just want their notes to be

accurate; they also wanted notes to be complete. In addition, many participants related the

completeness of their notes to the thoroughness of their understanding of the course content. For

example, one participant described the importance of her notes: ‘‘They’re the material that I look

atwhen I study for a test. They’remyprimary source, so Iwant them to be as complete as possible’’

(JM; 1; 16–17). Another participant explained that, when taking notes in class, she wrote

‘‘everything as much as I can; when I’m studying, I’m more selective’’ (PS; 1; 9).

Because participants described completeness as a particular concern when new vocabulary

was presented during lecture, the inclusion and elucidation of definitions was a particular focus of

researchers. Analysis of a designated topic of notes from early in the first course segment

(Weeks 1–5) showed how participants apparently paid less attention to completeness of

definitions in their notes than claims made during interviews. Four terms were developed in this

section of notes: epistasis; expressivity; penetrance; and pleiotropy. There are several ways in

which these four terms theoretically can be confusing. First, two terms start with ‘‘e’’ and two

begin with ‘‘p,’’ setting the stage for ambiguity. A second difficulty is meaning-based, because all

fourwords describe some aspect of the interaction between genes and traits. Although participants

implied that their interest in completeness would prompt them to detect and pay attention to this

potential verbal morass, none of them included definitions of all four words in their notes. On

Exam 1, the meanings of two of these four terms, penetrance and pleiotropy, were included, with

participants required to identify the terms. In general, the more a participant had developed the

differences and similarities among the four words in her notes, the better she recognized them on

the vocabulary section of Exam 1. For example, the seven participants who got both terms correct


included an average of 2.8 of the possible four definitions in their notes; the nine participants who

got only one of the definitions correct included an average of only 1.5 definitions. In addition, 66%

of the latter group gave as their answer one of the other three terms in the original grouping of four.

The concern for correctness in the participants’ theory of note-takingwas shown to be justified; the

participants, however, did not seem to apply it consistently.

Attention to organization. In addition to accuracy and completeness, organization was the

third and most frequently mentioned hallmark by which participants characterized their notes.

When participants were asked to describe the typical appearance of their notes, three fifths of them

mentioned organization, using words similar to this participant: ‘‘[good notes] are consistent,

organized, dated, the [handouts] are in order, there’s a very clear format’’ (PB; 1; 17). Headings,

spacing, underlining, using color, indenting, bulleting, or outlining were all mentioned as aspects

of organization. Moreover, about half of the participants estimated that during their college years

they had learned to better organize their notes.

One of the designated topics of notes in the second course segment (Weeks 6–11) was chosen

by researchers because it presented an opportunity to assess the organization of participants’

notes. The topic of the passage was RNA transcription, the process by which RNA is copied (or

transcribed) from DNA. Transcription can be explained as occurring in three steps resulting in

RNA, which is then modified in a series of changes, described as occurring in three substeps. The

problem in this passage (Figure 3) was formatting, because the transparency transcript merely

listed phrases and made no distinction between the three major steps and the three substeps.

Many participants had declared that the organization of their notes mirrored their

understanding of the content. One participant, for example, explained that ‘‘my notes have to

be really organized or my mind is jumbled, too’’ (GL; 1; 21). Only one fourth of participants

(n¼ 20) attempted to reformat the information to make the three major steps of RNA formation

Figure 3. Section of transparency transcript for RNA transcription.


stand out; about two thirds tried to reorganize the phrases to highlight the three substeps. Overall,

one fourth of participants did nothing to distinguish between the steps and the substeps in this

passage. Exam 2 included a question based on the topic of RNA transcription: ‘‘List three

processing events that modify eukaryotic pre-mRNA following transcription to produce a mature

message’’ (Exam 2). Participants apparently had considerable difficulty with this question, with

about two fifths of them confusing the three major steps with the three minor substeps. In the

interviews, participants seemed to acknowledge a note–mind connection, but did not apply it

consistently in their notes.

A few days after Exam 2, the topic covered in the genetics class was the process by which

RNA directs the building of protein (or translation). Translation can be described as occurring in

three steps. The middle step of the three can be explained as being comprised of three substeps.

Again, the transparency transcript showed no distinction betweenmajor steps andminor substeps.

The satisfactory set of notes suggested that reorganization of information—distinguishing steps

from substeps—would facilitate understanding of this passage. One fifth of participants (n¼ 20)

acknowledged a relationship among the three major steps in their notes; only four participants

attempted to organize the three substeps. Only one participant reorganized the information at both

the major step and minor substep levels.

The final exam included a question that required students to apply their understanding of both

transcription and translation to a hypothetical situation:

The eyes of Ewigs [a hypothetical organism used by Dr. Bradshaw in many of his

discussion and exam questions] are normally light green. As a world’s expert on Ewing

genetics, you isolate a mutation, whitelite, which causes the eyes to be white. You clone

and sequence the gene and find that the mutation is one that puts a stop codon in the 50 endof the protein coding sequence of a gene responsible for eye color. What effect would this

mutation have on transcription? What effect would this mutation have on translation?

(Final Exam)

Eight participants (n¼ 23) incorrectly answered both parts of the question, and six wrote

incorrect answers for either part one or part two. Although there was no absolute pattern

connecting the percentage of adequate representation for transcription and translation in

participants’ notes and their ability to answer these questions, no participant whose notes

had a percentage of adequate representation lower than 55% was able to answer the questions

correctly.

In general, therefore, although participants described their notes as exemplifying accuracy,

completeness, and organization, the analysis of those notes suggested that their application of their

note-taking theory was not always consistent.

Recognizing Instructor’s Cues

Participants spoke of how they had become proficient at interpreting the instructor’s cues

about the importance of specific information likely to be included on exams. They said that reading

the textbook before class enabled them to detect important points presented by the instructor and

claimed that reading the textbook after class helped them to fill in gaps that they sensed in lecture

material from class. An analysis of participants’ notebooks, however, indicated that participants

apparently failed to notice Dr. Bradshaw’s cues in two important areas: the role of figures and

diagrams in his lecture and the importance of the classic genetics experiments in the structure of

the course.


The role of figures.During his lectures, Dr. Bradshaw frequently referred directly to textbook

figures, showing a facsimile transparency of the figure using an overhead projector. Typically,

these figures (e.g., data tables, graphs, or diagrams) were not used by Dr. Bradshaw as mere

representations, like a photograph of Watson and Crick. Rather, transparencies were used during

lecture as scientists frequently use such devices—as representations of the actual concept

(McGinn & Roth, 1999). Dr. Bradshaw’s lecture typically incorporated a diagram or graph that

became a focal point for the classroom conversation that followed. Participants did not

immediately recognize either how Dr. Bradshaw used figures from the text as representations of

concepts in his genetics lectures or how keeping a record of these representations could be

important to their academic success. One participant explained her initial approach to the

incorporation of diagrams:

They were set up in the [text] book in little boxes that were a different color. It’s like [the

authors] were saying, ‘‘Take a little break from reading this [text material] and read this for

a while—it’s not as hard. (AL; 4; 26)

As participants progressed through the semester, they modified their note-taking strategies

and included more diagrams in their notes in at least two ways: by jotting down in their notes the

page from the textbook onwhich the diagramwas located, and by drawing the figure in their notes.

As students in the VanMeter et al. study (1994) stated, it is particularly difficult to draw a diagram

that the instructor is sketching at the board, while at the same time listening and taking notes. It is

even more challenging to draw the diagram, listen, and take notes when the figure is already

constructed on an overhead transparency. Therefore,many participants explained that theymade a

notation in their notebooks, referring them to a particular textbook diagram that had been an

integral part of the class presentation of a particular topic. As some participants described their

developing strategy, it appeared that they had recognized the importance of these diagrams. ‘‘We

go through the textbook in class,’’ commented one participant, who further stated:

And he shows us figure after figure. Sometimes I’ll write in it, when he’s going through it.

Then when I go back, I think about what I wrote and thing about what he was saying in

class. If he used the figure in class, I go back and read the text that matches the figure, then I

go and study the figure. (FT; 4; 46–49)

An examination of participants’ original notes (Table 1) indicated that, in the first course

segment (before Exam 1), participants’ notes included an average of 4.7 references to figures in

their textbook and an average of 0.3 personally constructed diagram. Original notes for the second

course segment showed an increase in references to figures of 274%and an increase of over 2000%

in figures drawn when compared with the first course segment. In the third course segment,

Table 1

Comparison of references to textbook diagrams made by participants in notes during the genetics course

Course Segment

References to Textbook Diagrams

Diagrams in TextbookAnnotated Postclass (%)Potential Diagrams

Page Referencein Notes

Hand-DrawnDiagram in Notes

I 26 4.7 0.3 30II 42 17.6 6.5 51IIIa 45 9.5 3.0 37

aValues for Course Segment III were adjusted to reflect the shorter time period of that segment.


references to textbook figures by each participant decreased to 9.5 and the number of additional

diagrams decreased to 3.0 for each participant. (Because the third course segment comprised one

third the number of days in each of the first two course segments, the 5-day value for references to

figures and added diagrams was adjusted proportionately to a 15-day value, to more clearly

compare with the first and second course segments.)

Researchers acknowledged that, just because a participant referred to a figure in her notes, it

did not necessarilymean that she had looked at the figure. Indeed, this possibilitywas corroborated

by some participants. Ursula, who was repeating the genetics course because she had failed it

previously, commented: ‘‘It’s not like I didn’t read the textbook [last year]. But when I was

highlighting, it didn’t mean that I was reading it. Okay, I’m highlighting, but I wasn’t

understanding. Now when I read [the text] over, I think, ‘Why didn’t I get this last semester?’’’

(US; 3; 12–13). A cross-check was made between textbook diagrams referenced in notes and

actual diagrams in the textbook. In notes for the first course segment, 30% of referenced figures in

the textbook showed some evidence of a later visit by the participants—for example, highlighting,

underlining, or writing. In the second course segment, this increased to 51%, and in the third

course segment it decreased to 37%. Because the textbooks were analyzed at the end of the

semester, however, it was not possible to determine when the textbooks had been marked.

Moreover, the researchers recognized that a participant looking up a figure and annotating it did

not necessarily imply that she had used the figure in her study, but viewed such annotation as

evidence of a ‘‘thought trail.’’

The importance of classic genetics experiments.Dr. Bradshaw’s genetics course was organi-

zed around the accumulated understanding derived from classic genetics experiments. A few

participants who recognized the structure of the course responded like this one: ‘‘I knew [they

were important] when we first started talking about them. That’s how the course is organized’’

(MC; 4; 13). The majority of participants, however, did not recognize the key role of classic

genetics experiments in the course. This comment was much more characteristic of the group:

‘‘I recognized [their importance] just the other day [a few days before Exam 2] when I started

studying. As I studied each experiment, I realized how one experiment helps the next one’’ (GL; 3;

9–10).

The first encounter that participants had with classic genetics experiments occurred midway

through the first course segment with thework of Harriet Creighton and BarbaraMcClintock, who

showed that, when an exchange of genetic information (or recombination) occurs, it is

accompanied by a simultaneous exchange of chromosome sections. The inadequacy of some

participants’ notes for this topic became obvious when they considered a question on Exam 1:

‘‘Explain how Creighton and McClintock experimentally linked gene recombination and the

physical exchange of chromosome material. You may (and should) use drawings’’ (Exam 1). As

one participant confessed in the second interview:

I read the book and I remember seeing that [about McClintock and Creighton] and I just

skimmed over it. It was in a box or something. And I was: ‘‘Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. They do

corn and recombination.’’ And we got to the test and that was the whole essay question. He

wanted diagrams and I just skimmed it. I didn’t even remember enough to bullcrap it. It

was terrible. (JR; 3; 81–83)

Shewas not alone in her reaction to the exam question. Only five participants (n¼ 23) got full

credit for the question and included a diagram that correctly matched the content of the question.

Twelve others drew a diagram, but it was related to a different topic, not Creighton and

McClintock’s work. Six participants drew no diagram at all.


After Exam 1, participants reported that they had been generally unprepared for the exam

question that dealt with Creighton and McClintock’s research because they had not understood

that these classic genetics experimentswere important to the professor, as reflected by items on the

exam. Did participants learn from this experience and modify their notes with regard to the next

classic experiment in the course? That topic, the experimental work of Frederick Griffith, was

presented in lecture byDr. Bradshaw a few days after Exam1. The average percentage of adequate

representation of the Griffith passage in the original version of the notes (n¼ 10) was 47%, a

considerable increase from the average score of 27% for the original version of the designated

topic on the Creighton–McClintock experiment. Although the exam question based on the

Creighton–McClintock experiment encouraged students to include a diagram in their answer,

only one participant included a reference to a textbook diagram or an actual drawing of a diagram

of Griffith’s experiment in her original notes. Inclusion of one perhaps would have clarified

participants’ understanding of Griffith’s research and been an indication of the type of carryover

they claimed they conducted throughout the course.

The experimental work of Meselson and Stahl was the topic of another designated passage

of notes that dealt with classic genetics experiments. Their experiment, which developed a

model to explain the process by which DNA replicates, was covered in one class period midway

in the second segment of the course (between Exam1 andExam2). The textbook (Russell, 1998)

presents the experiment over four pages, about half of which are devoted to diagrams. Because

an understanding of thework of these two researchers requires comprehension of the differences

and similarities among their three hypothetical models, the satisfactory set of notes included

specific details of those models. The notes of only six participants (n¼ 16), however, included

information about Meselson and Stahl’s three models. In addition, although the transparency

transcript devoted little attention to the results of Meselson and Stahl’s experiments, only

two participants elaborated in their notes on these researchers’ experimental results. The

percentage of adequate representation of the passage in the original version of the notes of

participants was 30%. Only 10 participants included any diagrams in their notes or references to

text figures.

A question appearing on Exam 2 indicated the level of conceptual integration that

Dr. Bradshaw expected for this topic:

Describe the Meselson and Stahl experiment that used equilibrium centrifugation

techniques to confirm the semi-conservative nature of DNA replication. Include

experimental techniques and results. Further, describe what the expected results would

have been if replication were conservative instead of semi-conservative. (Exam 2)

This question suggested that Dr. Bradshaw expected participants to develop aspects of the

experiment in a manner consistent with the satisfactory notes. An analysis of participants’ exams

(n¼ 23) revealed that half of participants either included no diagram in their answer or drew a

diagram that suggested a misunderstanding related to the explanation. Only one participant was

able to fully answer the question; moreover, she produced the only set of notes to include a full

explanation of the experiment.

Changes in Note-Taking Strategies

In line with the CSTN, participants in the genetics course recognized the inadequacy of their

course notes after Exam 1 and began to change how they took notes. Their strategies consisted of

several approaches.


Toward the beginning of the course, Susannah realized her notes were not sufficient. ‘‘The

[printed] notes are just an outline,’’ she stated. ‘‘If I don’t fill up the page with [extra] notes

everywhere, I don’t know what it is [when I go back to study]’’ (SA; 3; 32). Her strategy was

‘‘trying to jot downwhat he actually says [in class] . . . . I think I miss a lot of stuff—information is

flying at you’’ (SA; 3; 33–35). A look at the original version of Susannah’s notes indicates that she

followed up on her resolution. In her notes, the three topics in the first course segment had a

percentage of adequate representation of 39%; the three topics written in the second course

segment were estimated at 70%. The percentage of adequate representation of Susannah’s notes

for the third course segment was 100%. Shewas one of only four participants whose original notes

showed a steady improvement in adequate representation over the semester, and was the only

participant whose original notes scored that high at the end of the course.

Linda also targeted her course notes, explaining that her improved in-class note-taking was

the consequence of concerted attention to detail. She described how she learned to pay more

attention to the details of the course. ‘‘When [Dr. Bradshaw] explains stuff,’’ she said:

He asks for little details that I think wouldn’t be important—like what are the primers

made out of? I didn’t think that would be important. I just thought you’d have to know the

function of a primer. He brought that up again in class yesterday, and I was: ‘‘Whoa, better

write that down.’’ (LS; 3; 31–32)

Linda commented at the beginning of the course that she preferred her notes to be ‘‘little

jottings’’ (LS; 1; 7). The percentage of adequate representation for Linda’s original notes in the

first course segment reflected this preference—it was only 17%. The percentage of adequate

representation for her original notes of the second course segment, however, increased to 55%,

possibly bolstered by her greater attention to detail. By the end of the semester, however, Linda’s

percentage of adequate representation dropped to 38%.

Examination of the original notes of all participants for the seven designated topics indicated

that the overall quality improved to some extent. The first course segment, a 5-week period that

extended to Exam 1, included three designated topics of notes. The average percentage of

adequate representation of the original version of these three topics for all participants was

estimated to be 31%; that is, participants included about one third of the information in the satis-

factory set of notes. For the three designated topics of notes in the second course segment, a 6-week

time period betweenExam1 andExam2, the average percentage of adequate representation for all

participants increased to 43%; that is, the notes included about one third more necessary

information than the notes of the first course segment. However, for the single designated topic in

the third part of the course, a 2-week time period between Exam 2 and the final exam, the average

percentage of adequate representation decreased to 25%, that is, the notes included relatively less

necessary information than notes at the beginning of the course. Again, as with the inclusion of

diagrams, the amount of necessary information included in notes appeared to decline in the last

weeks of the course. Although the reasons for the apparent decline are numerous, a common one

suggested by participantswas frustration. This comment from Josie,made a fewdays before Exam

2,was typical: ‘‘[Genetics] isn’t looking good.Honestly, I’ve never said this about a class, but I just

want to pass it and get out of there. I don’t know if I am’’ (JR; 4; 1–2).

Like Susannah and Linda, Josie also decided that her notes would be a good starting place for

improvement after she performed poorly on Exam 1. Initially, she had not understood the

importance of the classic genetics experiments in the course. ‘‘I thought [Dr. Bradshaw]was using

experiments as an example to support, but the experiment is what he wants us to know’’ (JR; 3;

117–118), she explained. Therefore, she focused on intensifying the postclass modification of her


notes for the classic experiments, adding extra details on what she called ‘‘summary sheets’’ that

she kept in her notebook. ‘‘Look at this,’’ she exclaimed, flipping through sheets of paper covered

with drawings. She continued:

I went back [after class] and did this. These aren’t class notes. I hardly write down anything

from class. But I went back and wrote all of this . . . . For this [second exam], I didn’t just

read [the textbook]. I read it and tried to realize it in my head—what was going on. And for

the experiments, I went back and drew them out . . . I drew them out so I can understand it

and how I can remember it. (JR; 4; 35–38)

Josie explained that learning how to do this was not easy. ‘‘There are no cues at all [in lecture]

of what’s more important,’’ she said. ‘‘It seems to be a huge run-on sentence. I can’t pick out the

beginning of one and the end of another concept’’ (JR; 3; 100–101). The percentage of adequate

representation of her original notes stayed about the same. As her ability to select key points got

better, however, her notes showed consistent improvement over the semester, due to improved

postclass modification. At the end of the semester, Josie explained what she had done to make her

notes useful: ‘‘I had to take this [information in the notes] and look it up [in the textbook] and

translate it’’ (JR; 5; 64).

Each of the 23 participants stated in interviews that postclass processing of notes was an

important part of her general use of notes. Did their notes support this claim? For those who had

submitted their notebooks at the end of the semester (n¼ 20), it was possible to draw a comparison

between the percentage of adequate representation of their original notes (obtained immediately

after each lecture period) and their final notes (collected at the end of the semester). It was assumed

that the difference between the two versions would reflect the degree of postclass modification the

participant had conducted on that portion of her notes. (It should be noted that, because of the

study’s design, there was no way of determining when the postclass modification had occurred.)

The analysis of the difference between the two versions of notes for all the participants who

submitted their notes at the end of the semester varied from one course segment to another during

the semester. In the three designated topics of the first course segment, the average percentage of

adequate representations of the original and final versions of the notes for all participants were

almost identical, 31% and 36%, respectively, suggesting that little postclass modification

occurred. In the three designated topics of the second course segment, the average percentage of

adequate representation for all participants was 43% for the original version and 61% for the final

version, suggesting that participants devoted more time to processing their notes after lecture. In

the third course segment, the average percentage of adequate representation of the original version

was 25% and improved to 60% in the final version. There appeared to be no further increase after

the second course segment.

Some participants, such as Susannah and Josie, altered their note-taking strategies using

rather traditional methods such as targeting their in-class notes or their postclass modification of

notes. Others developed more idiosyncratic strategies. Bonnie’s progress through the semester

illustrates the latter approach. She described how she set a goal for herself after she failed the first

exam—to ‘‘see how it all fits together’’ in the genetics course (BT; 3; 16). Bonnie was asked to

describe her focus. ‘‘He might give you a phrase’’; she stated further:

But you have to know everything that comes under that phrase, and every specific part of

that phrase. Like he might give a scientist’s name. But you have to know the experiment—

the ins and out of the experiment—and he didn’t write that down [in the transparency

transcript]. (BT; 5; 39–41)


Bonnie’s targeted focus was to capture these ins and outs. But where did she locate them? She

replied that she found them in her textbook and transferred the information to her notes. The

content of Bonnie’s notes did not corroborate her answer, however. The percentage of adequate

representation for the first course segment was 38%. The notes for the second course segment—

notes taken after she had made the resolution to fit it all together—had a percentage of adequate

representation of only 49%. Indeed, in the notes that she submitted at the end of the semester, the

final 17 pageswere stapled together inwhat appeared to be a completely random sequence. Bonnie

said that she had targeted developing the big picture in her genetics course, but, to the researchers,

it did not seem to be coming into focus in her notes.

The discrepancywas partially explainedwhenBonnie described how she integrated her notes

and her textbook with the use of what she called her ‘‘study cards.’’When she read the textbook to

supplement deficiencies in her notes, she did not add information to the notes themselves, but

wrote it on her study cards. As she explained the strategy she employed when she studied, it

became apparent that the process she had developed during the semester was complicated:

When I studied, I compared my notes to somebody else’s notes, instead of just studying my

notes. And when I talked about it with someone else in my study group, I took their notes

and put them on my study cards. So my study cards are a combination of my notes and

someone else’s notes. (BT; 5; 28–30)

When Bonnie described her cards, it sounded as though that they were an assembly of

Dr. Bradshaw’s transparency transcript, supplemental information from the textbook, and the

notes of other students. But even that, it was learned, was not the whole situation. She explained

what frequently happened when she studied with Patty, another student in the class:

If I’m studying with Patty out loud, I don’t even look at my study cards. If I’m with Patty,

she repeats her notes and when I give her more information she adds to her notes what I

say. She repeats it over and over and over again. I’m hearing her say it. I never look at my

study cards when I’m studying at her house because she repeats her study cards, with both

of our information on them. (BT; 5; 33–36)

Bonniewas intent on ‘‘fitting it all together,’’ but the concepts were physically represented on

dozens of cards, each a collage of facts from various sources. Some information was not even

found in her collection of cards. Bonnie had developed a reasonable targeted strategy but the

results sounded like a tenuous representation, at best. When she gathered up her set of study cards

and went home, where was the big picture she had labored so hard to fit together? She had taken

aim with a targeted strategy, but had perhaps not chosen the one that would contribute to her

overall academic success.

The strategies implemented byBonnie, Josie, Linda, and Susannahwere a hit-or-miss attempt

at improvement. Each participant decided to target some problem area, for example, the classic

experiments. Some, like Josie, ended up with manageable summary sheets, each adequately

explaining one of the experiments; others, like Bonnie, found themselves with stacks of study

cards, collectively holding only part of the ‘‘big picture.’’ Sometimes the four participants

correctly focused on what was important to a topic, and other times they completely missed it. For

example, although many participants mentioned the challenge of understanding the concept of

RNA translation, Susannah was the only participant whose notes suggested that she had worked

through the problem. She also specifically alluded to the key diagram in the text in her discussion

of the problem. The selectivity that characterizes the undergraduate note-taker (Van Meter et al.,

1994)—the ability to recognize information that is either unfamiliar or important—described


these four participants to only a partial degree. In many cases, they recognized whenmaterial was

unfamiliar, but had difficulty noticing when it was important. In this regard, they were

representative of the majority of the other participants.

Discussion

Van Meter et al. (1994) described student notes ‘‘evolving’’ over time. It is an apt choice of

words. Species evolve when they are subjected to stresses—the greater the stresses, the more

significant the evolution. The genetics course was chosen as the focal course for the present study

because the literature and the anecdotal evidence provided by previous biology departmentmajors

indicated that students would find it challenging. If the design of the current research had included

only student interviews, the study would have provided a corroboration of the CSTN (Van Meter

et al., 1994), but little else. The design of the current study, however—its longitudinal nature, its

naturalistic setting with student academic accountability, its examination of notes and textbooks,

as well as interviews—enabled researchers to develop amore complete understanding of the note-

taking process for the participants.

One particular area of this understandingwas what made this particular course a difficult one.

When Van Meter et al. (1994) distinguished between easy-to-take-notes courses and difficult-to-

take-notes courses, they concentrated on the circumstances of the lecture situation, such as the

pace and organization of the instructor. They also mentioned that one of their manuscript

reviewers suggested an alternative explanation for course difficulty—it might be that courses in

which it is more difficult to take notes are simply more difficult courses. That reviewer’s

suggestion may have been borne out in this present study. Participants generally began the

semester commenting that the course material was not particularly challenging; for example, one

participant stated: ‘‘In lecture there’s never any time when I don’t know where things are coming

from’’ (CL; 2; 3–4). By the midpoint in the semester, however, comments were more along these

lines: ‘‘[The course] is hard because it’s a lot ofmaterial and you have to put the pieces together and

for me it’s been difficult to do. This is a part of this and that is a part of that. Doing things like that

are more difficult than memorizing something’’ (PS; 3; 15–18). Coupled with the inherent

challenge of the course content, however, were limitations in participants’ self-regulated learning

that kept them from doing as well as they had hoped, from recognizing the weaknesses in their

academic strategies, and from noticing the discrepancy between their theory of note-taking and its

day-to-day application. Although it is not possible to separate completely the part played by the

course itself and the role played by participants’ deficiencies in SRL strategies, it appeared that the

SRL limitations may have more profoundly determined the participants’ success in the course.

Limited Prior Knowledge

The CSTN (Van Meter et al., 1994) states that note-taking is greatly affected by prior

knowledge in the content area of the course; participants concurred. Although participants

claimed that they could easily detect from instructor’s cues what the important concepts would be

in a course, examination of their notes revealed two areas that suggested this was not always the

case: the use of figures and the importance of classic genetics experiments.

Participants only began to pay attention to diagrams after Exam 1 (possibly after the

Creighton–McClintock question suggested using one), and demonstrated an appreciable increase

in attention to figures in their notes between Exams 1 and 2. Perhaps because this was a more

mechanistic problem, participants found it easier to address. After Exam 2, however, the inclusion

of diagrams went into an apparent decline, which will be addressed later.


Nowhere in the present studywas there greater support for the importance of prior knowledge

than in participants’ understanding of how Dr. Bradshaw used classic genetics experiments in the

course. Participants initially thought the references to early geneticists were unimportant details;

they eventually discovered that the work of those early geneticists constituted a substantial part

of the course material for which they were responsible. ‘‘I had an epiphany,’’ Bonnie declared,

as well as:

I understand this. I can do this. I see how this all comes together. You need to understand

the conclusions of how thing happen. It took [this biologist] three people’s experiments to

figure out what to do. It took me all four people to understand this [particular concept].

(BT; 4; 24–26)

Participants had been told byDr. Bradshawwhat to expect in the course. Indeed, the first page

of the transparency transcript was a list of important geneticists and their contributions to the

discipline. As with many students, however, the participants’ real introduction to course

expectations apparently was not in the syllabus, but in Exam 1. Unfortunately, for many, the

realization came too late.

Participants tended to improve in their focus on classic experiments beginning with Exam 1

and continuing throughout the semester, but the percentage of adequate representation for the

designated classic experiment passages (the third, fourth, and fifth passages) never exceeded 47%

in the original notes and 52% in the final version. The lack of specifically targeted strategies may

explain why the average adequate representation of the final notes of designated topics remained

stalled as the semester progressed. Perhaps the participants could not improve the quality of

postclass modification because they did not understand the particular aspect of genetics enough to

know what would be necessary to improve their notes. Although the subject matter still revolved

around the same basic concepts of genetics, the precise nature of the topic they were learning was

different enough from their prior knowledge to bind them in a classic self-assessment ‘‘catch

22’’—they were so unskilled in an aspect of a domain that their incompetence made it difficult for

them to realize their weaknesses (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

Limited Goals and Strategies

Participants recognized that their success in the genetics course required the development of

improved note-taking strategies. Throughout the course, however, their ability to modify their

note-taking was affected by limitations of their goal-setting. At the beginning of the course,

participants’ goals tended to be generic and grade-based: ‘‘dowell in the course’’ or ‘‘get at least a

B.’’ After Exam 1, participants continued to describe goals that were grade-based and, for some,

overly optimistic—for example, ‘‘to get aBon the next test’’ (CL; 3; 42),when they had not passed

Exam 1. In addition, when participants explained their revised goals after they received the

midterm grade, they often spoke in terms of ‘‘turning things around’’ (JR; 3; 25), or ‘‘digging

themselves out’’ (SA 3; 28).

Generally speaking, participants with broad goals faced at least two challenges: how to

accomplish the goal and how to get regular feedback during progress toward that goal. Howdo you

get a B on the next test? How do you knowwhen you have turned things around or when you have

dug yourself out? Feedback from these generic goals only arrives after the test has been graded or

students are ‘‘out of the hole,’’ not in a regular manner that permits students to adapt what they are

doing; by the time they receive the feedback, it is too late to adapt. Moreover, participants with

overly optimistic goals were frequently disappointed when those goals were not realized. If the


goalwas to get a Bþ on the next test and the examgradewere aB, the student could easily interpret

the test results, however positive, as failure. Althoughmanydiscussed the need for changes in their

note-taking, they apparently did not recognize the importance of incorporating that need as a

specific goal.

Throughout the semester, some participants stated goals that were specific, incremental,

performance-based, and realistic. Participants reported goals such as taking better notes, regularly

reading the textbook before class, keeping up with course vocabulary, working on problem sets,

reviewing lecture notes routinely, and asking questions of Dr. Bradshaw. By formulating and

working toward more realizable goals, they reaped at least two benefits: they could identify when

they had made progress toward that goal and the work that they were accomplishing enhanced

their understanding of the course, making them believe that their efforts were worthwhile. Josie

and Bonnie, for example, could point to their study sheets or study cards as evidence that they had

made progress toward reaching their goal; moreover, their improved notes enabled them to do

better on the course tests.

This goal limitation may help to explain at least two declines in the participants’ overall

performance. Although both the number of included diagrams and the quality of notes as reflected

by the percentage of adequate representation improved from Exam 1 to Exam 2, both decreased

from Exam 2 to the end of the course. In the fourth interview, participants were asked to

characterize themselves with three descriptive words. Slightly more than 50% of them (n¼ 18)

suggested either ‘‘frustrated’’ or ‘‘overwhelmed.’’ Although it is not possible to draw a direct

correlation, it appears in many instances that participants who used such descriptions were those

whose goals tended to bemore generic and overly optimistic. Students withmore inadequate goals

apparently did not ‘‘resign’’ (Van Meter et al., 1994, p. 334), or quit, but may have resigned

themselves to not doing well and reasoned that additional expenditure of effort was not

worthwhile. Participantswithmore specific and incremental goals, however, continued to improve

the quality of their notes throughout the semester. Moreover, they could acknowledge the effort

they had expended and admit that ‘‘it was worth it’’ (WL; 5; 42).

Participants’ ability tomodify their note-takingwas also limited by the strategy array towhich

they could turn when note-taking modifications were required. As a consequence, a participant

might speak of the need for translating notes into her own words and might spend considerable

time and energy trying to do so, but have little to show for her effort. In many cases, this occurred

because the strategies were inappropriate to the task. For many participants, the note-taking

changes put into practice involved writing more information on their ‘‘study cards,’’ arguably an

unsophisticated academic approach. Other than the use of study cards and summary sheets, no

participant appeared to develop any other modification of her note-taking practice.

Limited Self-Observation During the Course

During the performance phase of the genetics course, self-regulated note-takers focus on and

monitor strategies that they are employing. Many participants, however, apparently failed to

notice that their notes did not exemplify the hallmark characteristics they ascribed to them. After

Exam 1, the course notes improved, but in many cases the improvement did not appear to be

targeted toward any specific aspect of the genetics course, or to be derived from any particular part

of Exam 1. For example, average percentage of adequate representation for notes about the classic

experiment ofGriffith, discussed in class immediately after Exam1,was almost double that for the

classic experiment of Creighton and McClintock, discussed in class prior to Exam 1. Interviews

suggested, however, that most participants were not aware of any connection between the two

topics. Clare’s comments during the fourth interview, about a week before Exam 2, are indicative


of this situation. After she described how she planned to prepare for Exam 2, she was asked how

she intended to study the classic geneticists who might be included on the test. ‘‘I would make

[study] cards for them—their major achievements, if they came up with any techniques, some of

the detail in their experiment, what they studied, what they found,’’ she reported (CL; 4; 45–46).

But, when Clare was asked when she had recognized that the course was focused on these classic

genetics experiments, she candidly replied: ‘‘I don’t know that I ever thought about it before,

probably until now that you made me think about it. I knew that was going on, but I never really

thought about it in class before’’ (CL; 4; 48).

Throughout the semester, it was not unusual for a participant to have difficulty answering a

question that probed her understanding of a particular note-taking strategy that she regularly

employed. A few days prior to Exam 2, for example, Josie was describing how she prepared

flashcardswithwhich she could study. In themiddle of explaining how shewould prepare the cards

to study for the genetics exam, she stopped abruptly. After a long pause, she acknowledged, ‘‘I

can’t use flashcards at all [in genetics]. I [already] knew that about my philosophy course and my

sociology course, but I didn’t realize that about genetics until just now’’ (JR; 2; 56–57).

It was recognized at the outset of this study that interviews with participants about their notes

would not be entirely neutral in outcome.What had not been anticipated, however, was the almost

therapeutic effect that the conversations had for many participants. Apparently, the interviews

provided many participants not only a forum for a metacognitive conversation, but an awakening

to the necessity of such a conversation. In the final interview, participants were asked if the time

they had put aside to take part in the study had been a liability. ‘‘If I hadn’t done it,’’ one participant

responded, ‘‘I would have never had an opportunity to sit down and think about [taking notes].

I would never think about how I learn, or how I put things together inmy head if I didn’t have to tell

someone else’’ (BT; 5; 66). Apparently, she was not speaking only for herself, because, generally

speaking, participants did not seem to be aware that students must turn their observation inward

and watch themselves take notes, study, take tests, and carry out the other tasks inherent in being a

student. Students who engage in such activity greatly improve their chance of succeeding; those

who do not have a diminished possibility of doing well.

Limited Self-Reflection After the Course

When a course is completed, self-regulated students evaluate their performance and decide

whether the strategies they thoughtfully put into practice should be continued in courses to come.

Many participants, confronting the immediate need to change their note-taking and study habits,

did not have the luxury of conducting a carefully controlled experiment as the weeks of the

genetics course progressed. Rather, they used amyriad of new strategies when they took notes and

studied for Exam 2 and the final exam. Susannah explained her end-of-the-course study strategy

modification. ‘‘I wrote out more information on study cards’’; she also said:

And I wrote out the information on them different—more like I thought it would be on the

test. I read a lot more from the [text] book to clear up problems. I read after every lecture

now. I took notes from the book and made study cards for that, too. I studied for the

[second] test through the week before. The day before it, I studied for 7 hours. I didn’t

know if any of this would work, but I knew I had to do something. I figured that was all I

could do. (AS; 4; 15–22)

Susannah and many other participants tried to develop new strategies that would enable them

to succeed in the course. However, like an investigator who has run an experiment without a


control, theywere left with little data-based feedback at the end of the semester.When the genetics

course was over, how would they know which of the many changes that they had implemented

brought them success? Therefore, many left the course knowing that they may have done

something to improve their note-taking, but could not articulate specific details.

In addition, many of the participants declared that they would probably not continue to

implement their newly developed strategies in their next course. ‘‘I wouldn’t continue if I didn’t

have to because this is a lot of work,’’ one participant acknowledged; ‘‘This took so much of my

time from my other courses, that if I didn’t have to go back and take these detailed notes from the

text, I wouldn’t’’ (JR; 5; 77–78).

Only one participant could look back on the strategies she had implemented in the genetics

course and view them in a truly positive light: ‘‘I thought this course was a stepping stone to the

courses that I’ll have later,’’ she stated; ‘‘This definitely is one of themost challenging courses that

I’ve had so far. I’m definitely going to take what I’ve learned from this course to other courses’’

(SA; 5; 59).

A New View of the Undergraduate Note-Taker

Aweaving together of the CSTN (VanMeter et al., 1994) and the framework of self-regulated

learning (Schunk, 2005; Zimmerman, 1989, 1998) produces a new view of the undergraduate

note-taker. The successful application of the CSTN is epitomized by self-regulated note-takers

(SRNs) who competently integrate goal-setting and strategic planning in the forethought stage of

an academic course. Their goals are well defined and their strategies are specific. Once the

semester begins, the performance of SRNs demonstrates an interaction between self-observation

and self-control—they keep track of how successfully they implement particular strategies. SRNs

do not ‘‘resign’’ (Van Meter et al., 1994, p. 334) in response to lower-than-expected performance

on exams, but evaluate course notes in the light of course tests and make necessary adjustments in

note-taking strategies to improve performance on later tests. They have an extensive array of

sophisticated note-taking strategies and a set of beliefs of which they are metacognitively aware

and about which they can speak articulately. SRNs are sensitive to the range of their prior

knowledge, and can easily detect where a concept or a skill fits into the existing pattern of their

understanding. SRNs are proactive, often identifying a problem in its incipient form—an ‘‘Aha!’’

experience—and solving it before it gets out of control. At the end of the course, SRNs engage in

self-reflection. They evaluate their performance and assign causal significance to the results; they

respond with satisfaction or dissatisfaction to their performance and decidewhether to change the

performance in the future. SRNs can take the experience gained fromone course and apply it when

they are challenged by another course in the future.

Participants in this present study were, for the most part, not SRNs. Rather, they were typical

note-takers—TNs—representative of a large group of undergraduates who populate our science

classrooms. Like their SRN counterparts, they also had the forethought to make plans prior to

beginning the genetics course. Their goals, however, tended to be generic—‘‘get a B’’—and their

intended strategies were untargeted—‘‘study real hard.’’ Once the genetics course began, TNs’

self-control was limited because of the narrow array of strategies at their disposal. In addition,

their self-observation was limited, keeping them from monitoring their performance adequately.

TNs adjusted their note-taking after less-than-desirable performances in Exam 1, but in a

nontargeted manner. TNs, like the SRNs, did not ‘‘resign,’’ or quit. Many, however, seemed to

discontinue or diminish their practice of new strategies toward the end of the semester, resigning

themselves to less than optimistic results in the course. Their arsenal of strategies appeared to be

limited and their metacognitive awareness of beliefs seemed to be underdeveloped. TNs were


aware of their prior knowledge, but frequently recognized the insignificant piece of information

and not the larger picture. They seemed to be reactive. A problem occurred—an ‘‘Oh, no!’’

experience—and by the time they solved it, it was too late. As a consequence, for the majority of

TNs, the development of new note-taking strategies was not an a priori plan of change. ‘‘I didn’t

know if [the new strategies] would work,’’ one participant admitted, ‘‘but I knew I had to do

something’’ (SA; 4; 9). But, which of the changes in note-taking ultimately contributed to the

greatest portion of her success? Which strategies would be worthwhile to continue in a future

course, and which should probably be abandoned? Limited self-monitoring during the semester

apparently contributed to limited self-reflection upon the semester’s close.

Implications for Teaching, Advising, and Research

Several implications for teaching and advising can be drawn from the present study. First,

students in Van Meter et al.’s (1994) study, corroborated by participants in the present study,

describe the key role played by prior knowledge in their success in taking good notes in a course.

Therefore, an informal assessment of prior knowledge (e.g., as suggested by Angelo & Cross,

1993) might assist students at the outset of a new course or a new topic within a course. Students

might also benefit from exercises that encourage them to continue the assessment throughout the

semester. Second, academic advisors may greatly assist their advisees by more overt involvement

in helping them set and assess their goals. These goals should be specific and assessable, taking not

the form ‘‘I will write better notes,’’ but ‘‘I will supplement my class notes with extra diagrams

from each day’s genetics lecture.’’ These goals should also be aimed toward incremental

improvement, not ‘‘I will get an A on the next exam instead of a D,’’ but ‘‘I will score at least a 75

on the next quiz instead of a 50.’’ Third, because undergraduate students may not possess the full

arsenal of strategies ascribed to them by the literature, they may benefit from overt efforts by

faculty to introduce them to strategies that are specifically related to particular topics or to discuss

possible options. Hofer et al. (1994) suggested that undergraduatesmay particularly need this type

of intervention in a course out of their major. This study suggests that they may also be aided by

strategy development when theymove to upper-level courses in their ownmajor. Fourth, early in a

course, well before the first exam, students may need opportunities to assess their original class

notes for accuracy, completeness, and organization, and to assess the quality of the postclass

processingof their notes. These opportunities could beprovided invariousways, using, for example,

short and simple classroom assessment techniques (e.g., Angelo & Cross, 1993). Students could be

given a brief amount of time to compare notes on a particularly complex lecture topic to see how

colleagues processed their notes. In general, studentsmight profit from the ongoing incorporation of

metacognitive conversation with both their academic advisors and college professors.

The present study also has implications for research both in the design of future note-taking

studies and in possible research questions. The students in VanMeter et al.’s (1994) study claimed

that the characteristics of accuracy, completeness, and organization were inherent to their notes;

theydescribed how they incorporated their textbook into studyingwith their course notes; and they

explained how they reconstructed their notes with sophisticated strategies. All of these practices

imply a thoughtful application of the CSTN. Analyses by Van Meter and others, however, were

limited to participants’ comments about their note-taking strategies. In contrast, the present study

had the advantage of comparing what participants said they did to the evidence provided by their

notes. This comparison suggested that the participants, and possibly students in general, may not

consistently apply the CSTN in their courses. Therefore, a strong recommendation to researchers

planning future studies of student note-taking is to include not only interviews, but a thorough

examination of students’ notes and course materials.


Several research questions are suggested by this present study. First, did the differences

between ‘‘talking the talk’’ about note-taking theory and ‘‘walking the walk’’ occur because the

genetics course was a difficult course? Were the differences a result of the participants in the

current study being all women? To resolve this issue, similar studies should be conducted in

courses that students do not perceive as difficult, and in courses of varying levels of difficulty with

enrollment of both male and female students. Second, how do students metacognitively explain

their changes in note-taking strategy? To answer this question, students should be involved in

longitudinal studies that engage them in ongoing metacognitive discussions. The present study

strongly suggests that the typical student would not have sufficiently developed self-regulatory

skills to answer the question unassisted. Third, how do students view their note-taking? Is it a

mechanistic process—similar to the role of a court stenographer? Or is it a more thoughtful

process—similar to the role of a translator, turning the words from the language of the professor

into the student’s own words? To begin to answer this question, studies modeled on Pressley and

Afflerbach’s (1995) ‘‘read-aloud’’ protocol may help researchers to get inside the thought

processes of undergraduates—a return to the DiVesta and Gray (1972, 1973) process/product

consideration of note-taking, but from the student’s point of view.

Some professors might object to the preceding pedagogical suggestions on the grounds that

they contradict the very nature of students’ learning being self-regulated. Furthermore, if the

typical undergraduatewere an ideal self-regulated student, these faculty-based strategies probably

would not be necessary. This study, however, strongly suggests that the average undergraduate

does not have themetacognitive skills so readily available to the ideal self-regulated student. If this

is the case, there is a need for faculty to design courses that help students learn how to learn as well

as to learn the actual content. Self-regulated learning is not learned all at once any more than the

subject matter whose acquisition it fosters is learned all at once. Students—and teachers—must

come to understand that self-regulation is a journey, not a destination.

Notes

1In this and subsequent quotations, the initials identify the speaker, the first numeral identifies the

interview, and the following numeral sequence identifies a particular statement within that interview.2Not all 23 participants submitted their notebooks after each lecture; therefore, the total number of sets

of original notes analyzed for each lecture period varied from day to day.

Appendix

Questions for Interview 1

When in school did you first begin to take notes?

How has your note-taking style changed over the years?

How do your notes change from course to course?

What is a good set of notes for you? A bad set?

What is the purpose of taking notes?

When do you take notes in class? How do you know what’s important to take down? What is

the structure of your notes?

Do you always take notes? When do you not take notes?

What do you do with things in your notes that you don’t understand?

Do you paraphrase when you take notes or do you write down information word for word?

Do your notes change over the semester?


Do you take notes even when you are very familiar with the information being presented?

How does note-taking affect your ability to think about information during class?

How does class size affect your note-taking?

What conditions make it easier for you to take notes? Harder?

How do you use your notes when you study?

Do you study with others? Under what conditions?

Do you understand other people’s notes? Do you ever borrow other people’s notes?


How would you evaluate your success in the genetics course so far?

What do you base that on?

What is your goal in the genetics course now?

What are you doing to reach that goal?

What has been the most helpful thing you’ve done so far in studying genetics?

How do you know?

Has there been any part of the course so far that has beenmore difficult for you to understand?

What has made it more difficult?

Have you done anything different to try to understand it?

How do you like the genetics course so far?

Do you feel comfortable in class?

Have you done anything to change your note-taking in the class?

What do you think happens when you study?

Is it possible for a person to become smarter, or does a person always remain at the same

degree of being smart?







How do you know?

Has there been any part of the course so far that has beenmore difficult for you to understand?



How do you like genetics so far?



When you study, do you have a specific goal in mind?

When you study, how do you know that you know?

What keeps you going when you’re taking a course that is very challenging for you?








How do you know?

Has there been any party of the course so far that has been more difficult for you to

understand?



How do you like genetics so far?



Are you preparing to study for the second test any differently than you did for the first one?

How did you know to make those changes?

What three words would you use to describe yourself in the genetics course at this point?

Do you have any plans about preparing for the final exam?

When you plant to begin to study?


How do you think you did on the final exam?


How did you prepare for the final exam?

When did you begin?

What did you do?

What content did you focus on?

What was the hardest part of the course for you to learn?

What made it difficult?

What did you do to learn it?

Did you use the notes supplied by Dr. Bradshaw?

Where they of any help to you?

How helpful was the textbook in your studying?

How did you use the text? Did you buy it used or new?

Are all the markings in it yours?

Do you plan to keep it?

Do you usually keep your textbooks?

Did you make any changes in your note-taking style during the course?

What? Why? When?

Do you think you might continue to use any of those different ways in the future?

Did you make any changes in your studying strategies during the course?

What? Why? When?

Do you think you might continue to use any of those strategies in the future?

What were the most helpful?

How do you think you did in genetics as a course?


Did you learn anything about yourself as a student as a result of taking this course?

How did you learn that lesson?

What three works would you use to describe yourself at this point?

Has participating in this study kept you back in any way from doing as well in the course as

you might have done otherwise?


What kind of educational background do adults in your family have?

Are you a resident or a commuter?

Did you work during the semester? On or off campus? How many hours a week?

Do you have any other major responsibilities that take up your time during the week?

The authors thank Steven Cain for his contribution. The author also thank the three

anonymous reviewers for their reactions and suggestions.

References

Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for

college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baker, W.P., & Lawson, A.E. (2001). Complex instructional analogies and theoretical

concept acquisition in college genetics. Science Education, 85, 665–683.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carrier, C.A., Williams, M.D., & Dalgaard, B.R. (1988). College students’ perceptions of

notetaking and their relationship to selected learner characteristics and course achievement.

Research in Higher Education, 28, 223–239.

Carter J.F., &VanMatre, N.H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 67, 900–904.

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

Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282–291.

Crawford, C.C. (1925b). Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking.

Journal of Educational Research, 12, 379–386.

DiVesta, F.J., & Gray, G.S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational


DiVesta, F.J., & Gray, G.S. (1973). Listening and note taking. II: Immediate and delayed

recall as functions of variations in thematic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-review

intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287.

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

memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.

Eisner, S., &Rohde, K. (1959). Note taking during or after the lecture. Journal of Educational


Guthrie, J.T., & Anderson, E. (1999). In J.T. Guthrie & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Engaged

reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17–45). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Hofer, B.K., Yu, S.L., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Teaching college students to be self-regulated

learners. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulation of learning and performance:

Issues and educational applications (pp. 57–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

Kiewra, K.A., DuBois, N.F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D.

(1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–

245.


Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in

recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

LeCompte, M.D., Millroy, W.L., & Preissle, J. (Eds.) (1992). The handbook of qualitative

research in education. New York: Academic Press.

Lewis, J., &Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—

Do students see any relations? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177–196.

Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P.G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learning ask

higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.

McGinn, M.K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice:

Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28,

14–24.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Nelson, T.O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive

judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–

213.

Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C.L.Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students

comprehend informational texts. In C.C. Block&M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:

Research-based best practices (pp. 28–41). New York: Guilford Press.

Palmatier, R.A. (1971). Comprehension of four note-taking procedures. Journal of Reading,

14, 235–240.

Palmatier, R.A., & Bennett, J.M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of

Reading, 18, 215–218.

Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.

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

Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.

Peverly, S.T., Brobst, K.E., Graham, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). College adults are not good at

self-regulation: A study on the relationship of self-regulation, note taking, and test taking. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 95, 335–346.

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New

York: Guilford Press.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of

constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E.S. (1988). Delusions about performance on multiple-choice

comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 454–464.

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E.S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text.


Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching and assessment. New York:

HarperCollins.

Russell, P.J. (1998). Genetics. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Schunk, D.H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.


Stahl, N.A., King, J.R., & Henk, W.A. (1991). Enhancing students’ notetaking through

training and evaluation. Journal of Reading, 34, 614–622.

Stencel, J.E. (2003). Note-taking techniques in the science classroom. Journal of College

Science Teaching, 30, 403–405.


Vacca, R.T., & Vacca, J.L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the

curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

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.

Weiss, I.R. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics

Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement.

In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:

Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-

regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 3, 73–86.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of

student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Paulsen, A.S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying:

An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,

63, 13–27.
