The Effects of Guided Notes on College Students’ Lecture Note Taking and Learning Performance
Author(s):
Pin-Hwa Chen (presenting / submitting) Timothy Teo
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Poster

Session Information

22 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster Session

General Poster Session

Time:
2014-09-03
12:30-14:00
Room:
Poster Area C (between B019 - B024)
Chair:

Contribution

Lecture is among the most widely used methods of instruction in higher education (Dyson, 2008; Raver & Maydosz, 2010). In college classes, teachers often provide handouts to their students for note taking before the lecture. In fact, note taking is foremost among the strategies adopted by college students to help them learn lecture material (Castello & Monereo, 2005; Palmatier & Bennett, 1974). Previous studies have found the quality of lecture notes taken by college students to be significantly correlated with their learning performance (Chen, 2013; Peverly et al., 2007). However, researchers have noted that the general quality of college students’ lecture notes vary widely, and in many cases, were found to be poor and unsatisfactory (Baker & Lombardi, 1985; Chen, 2013; McDonald & Taylor, 1980).

In response, teacher-prepared notes have been pursued as a solution to ameliorate the problem of poor note taking among students. These range from PowerPoint handouts to verbatim lecture notes. Among these, guided notes are found to be among the most effective teacher-prepared notes (Konrad, Joseph, & Eveleigh, 2009). Guided notes are instructor-prepared handouts that contain background information and cues about the lecture content, with spaces for students to record the key facts, concepts, and relationships during the lecture (Heward, 1994, 2001). For example, guided notes have been used to improve learning performance and enhance class participation among students with learning difficulties (Hamilton, Seibert, Gardner, & Talbert-Johnson, 1999; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003; Patterson, 2005; Sweeny, et al., 1999).

In recent years, researchers have focused on the effect of guided notes on learning among college students. They found that when students were provided with guided notes by the teachers, their verbal responses to the teacher and note quality increased (Austin, Lee, & Carr, 2004; Austin, Lee, Thibeault, Carr, & Bailey, 2002). In addition, students who were provided with guided notes made fewer mistakes when answering complex quiz questions, compared with those who were provided with complete notes from their teachers (Neef, McCord, & Ferreri, 2006). Although these studies have provided support for the use of guided notes to enhance effective learning among college students, several issues remain unresolved. First, studies on note taking have typically focused on comparing the effects of guided notes versus complete notes on college students’ performance (Neef et al., 2006). However, the use of complete notes is rare at the college level, and it is more realistic to compare the effects of guided notes versus outline notes on college students’ performance (Chen, 2013).Second, there is a dearth of studies that discuss the effect of training on students’ ability to use guided notes to take quality notes. Third, many researchers have focused on the immediate effect of guided notes on selected outcome variables, to the exclusion of the delayed effects of the intervention. By examining the delayed effects of their interventions, researchers would be able to determine if there was significant improvement in the quality of student’s notes in the post experiment period.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of guided notes on the quality of students’ lecture note taking, as well as their learning performance. The following research questions were answered in this study: (1) To what extent would students provided with guided notes perform better on the delayed post-test of note quantity and quality relative to students provided with outline notes? (2) To what extent would students provided with guided notes perform better on the post-test and delayed post-test of learning performance relative to students provided with outline notes? (3) In what way do students perceive the effects of guided notes on their learning and note taking?

Method

A quasi-experimental design was used. Two non-equivalent comparison groups: the experimental and the control group were employed. The independent variable was lecture note format and the dependent variables were lecture note taking (the quantity and quality of unit notes) and learning performance (performance on achievement tests). Possible confounding variables such as lecturer effect, lecture duration, teaching content, and lecture material were controlled to be same for both groups. Participants were recruited from two intact classes of a general psychology course at a publicly-funded university in Southern Taiwan. The two classes were randomly assigned to the experimental and control group. Sixty-five undergraduates participated in the experiment (32 in the experimental group, 33 in the control group). The general psychology course was taught once a week and comprised of five units. The unit topics were the Nature of Psychology (unit 1), the Biological Foundation of Behaviour (unit 2), Sensation and Perception (unit 3), Learning (unit 4), and Memory (unit 5). These units were taught through mass lectures and class discussions. The experiment was conducted during the teaching of unit 3 and unit 4. At the pretest phase, researchers collected students’ lecture notes on unit 2, conducted the Achievement Test (I) for the experimental, and control groups. During the experiment, students in the experimental group were provided with guided notes for units 3 and 4, while those in the control group received outline notes. Participants in the experimental group were directed to fill in the blanks in their guided notes during the lectures. At the posttest phase (one week after the end of the experiment), Achievement Test (II) was conducted for the two groups. Additionally, students in the experimental group were asked to complete the Teaching Feedback Questionnaire. At the delayed posttest phase (one month after the end of the experiment), after the lectures of unit 5 were complete, researchers collected students’ lecture notes from both groups and administered Achievement Test (III). All the instruments which consisted of three achievement tests and the Teaching Feedback Questionnaire were presented in Chinese. The participant’s lecture notes for unit 2 and unit 5 were analysed. To analyse the quantity of notes, the number of Chinese characters was counted. The quality of notes was assessed using the rubric proposed by Peverly et al. (2007). Students’ scores for note quantity, note quality, as well as their achievement test scores were analysed using the analysis of covariance.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of covariance indicated that after controlling for the effects of the pretest, both groups did not differ significantly for note quantity on the delayed posttest of note quantity (F(1, 62) = 1.74, p > .05). In terms of note quality, analysis of covariance showed that, after excluding the effects of the pretest, both groups differed significantly for note quality on the delayed posttest (F(1, 62) = 6.90, p < .05, η2 = .10 ). From the adjusted means of the two groups, it was shown that the experimental group had performed better than the control group. The analysis of covariance also indicated that after excluding the effects of the pretest, there was a significant difference between the two groups on the posttest of learning performance (F(1, 62) = 7.71, p < .01, η2 = .11). From the adjusted means of the two groups, it was shown that the experimental group had performed better than the control group. In addition, after excluding the effects of the pretest, the analysis of covariance indicated that there was a significant difference between the two groups on the delayed posttest of learning performance (F(1, 62) = 4.07, p < .05, η2 = .06). According to the adjusted means, the experimental group had performed better than the control group. Students in the experimental group were asked to provide feedback regarding the use of guided notes. Up to 96.9% students thought that the guided notes had positive effects on their note taking. All (100%) students agreed that guided notes were helpful in their exam preparation. When asked about their preference for guided notes, 75% of the students responded positively. About 90.6% reported an improvement in their note taking skills after being trained in the use guided notes.

References

Austin, J. L., Lee, M., & Carr, J. P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 314-320. Austin, J. L., Lee, M., Thibeault, M. D., Carr, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (2002). Effects of guided notes on university students’ responding and recall and information. Journal of Behavior Education, 11, 243-254. Chen, P. H. (2013). The effects of college students’ in-class and after-class lecture note-taking on academic performance. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 173-180. Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior problem. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 133-140. Heward, W. L, (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283-320). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Heward, W. L. (2001). Guided notes: Improving the effectiveness of your lectures. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Partnership Grant for improving the Quality of Education for Students with Disabilities. Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Eveleigh, E. (2009). A meta-analytic review of guided notes. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(3), 421-444. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 18(1), 52-65. Neef, N. A., McCord, B. E., & Ferreri, S. (2006). Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during lectures on college students’ quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123-130. Patterson, K. B. (2005). Increasing positive outcomes for African American males in special education with the use of guided notes. Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 311-320. Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski. J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167-180. Sweeney, W. J., Ehrhardt, A. M., Gardner, R. III, Jones, L., Greenfield, R., & Fribley, S. (1999). Using guided notes with academically at-risk high school students during a remedial summer social studies class. Psychology in the Schools, 36(4), 305-318.

Author Information

Pin-Hwa Chen (presenting / submitting)
National Pingtung University of Education
Pingtung City
University of Macau, Macau, China

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.