Generative Strategy Abstract 1Running head: GENERATIVE STRATEGY ABSTRACT Note Taking as a Generative Strategy AbstractJennifer MaddrellOld Dominion UniversityIDT 873 Advanced Instructional Design TechniquesDr. MorrisonSeptember 2, 2008

Generative Strategy Abstract 2 Note Taking as a Generative Strategy

Overview

Citing a large and conflicting body of prior research, Peper and Mayer (1986) suggestthat three main hypotheses are forwarded by prior research on the effect of note taking on alearner’s cognitive processing, including 1) the attention hypothesis (note takers pay closer attention to the to-be-learned material), 2) the distraction hypothesis (note takers concentrate onthe act of writing instead of listening), and 3) the generative hypothesis (note taking enableslearners to actively relate material to existing knowledge). Peper and Mayer suggest thatevaluations of both attention and distraction hypothesis have tended to focus on

how much

isrecalled. In contrast, by focusing on the generative hypothesis within their reported experiments,the goal is to evaluate the difference in

what is learned

between note takers and non-note takers.

ResearchFocus.

Perry and Mayer (1986) focus on three generative hypothesis predictions. Thefirst prediction is that note takers will perform better on far-transfer test measures (problem-solving) and worse on near-transfer test measures (verbatim recognition and fact recall). This is based on the assumption that note taking offers an opportunity for integration with existingknowledge, but the process of reorganizing the new information interferes with near-transfer verbatim recall of specific facts. Secondly, these results will be stronger for those unfamiliar withthe material given the processing required to integrate and organize new information. Finally, theresults associated with the note taking generative activity will be similar to those for other typesof generative activities.

Methodology.

Two separate experiments were conducted to test these predictions. Thefirst experiment involved a group of high school students while the second included collegestudents at the University of California at Santa Barbara. To test the first hypothesis, Experiment1 included only subjects unfamiliar with the to-be-learned topic. The students were dividedequally between either a “notes” and “no-notes” group. The same video lecture was shown toeach group. Afterward, the notes were collected from the “notes” group and the same posttestwas administered to both groups. Recognition questions asking the students to identify sentencesthat occurred verbatim in the lecture were followed by fact retention and problem solvingquestions. To assess the second and third hypothesis, Experiment 2 included some subjects whowere familiar with the topic and added a question-answering treatment group. The samematerials and posttests were used for both experiments.

Conclusions.

In contrast to the attention hypothesis, the superior results of the “no-note”group to verbatim recognition measures does not support the prediction that note taking results in better total recall. Further, in contrast to the distraction hypothesis, the “notes” group performed better than the “no-note” group in some measures. However, significant differences existed between the measures of

what was learned

(far-transfer versus near-transfer measures)supporting the generative hypothesis. Note takers excelled on the far-transfer (problem solving)test measures. In contrast, “no-note” takers were more successful in near transfer verbatim andfact recall of information. Supporting the second prediction, the results in Experiment 2 werestrong for learners unfamiliar with the topic, but not for familiar learners. Further, in support of

Generative Strategy Abstract 3the third prediction, the other tested generative activity (within the questioning-answeringtreatment) had similar results as note taking.Perry and Mayer (1986) viewed these results as support for generative theory. Theyconcluded that the process of note taking (especially for those unfamiliar with the material)encourages the note takers to assimilate new information with past experience and makeinterconnections among pieces of information.

Heuristics

Based on the results of these experiments, learners should be offered the opportunity totake notes as a means of supporting the long term encoding of new information. This researchsuggests that the note taking process offers learners the opportunity for integration andorganization of the new information with existing knowledge. However, this research alsosuggests that these results are more likely when the to-be-learned information is unfamiliar to thelearner. Further, the process of re-organization and integration with prior knowledge involved innote taking may interfere with verbatim encoding of information and facts.

Critique of Article

A key strength of this research is the evaluation of note taking across three separatehypotheses, including attention, distraction, and generative theories. Further, the researchhighlights the advantages, as well as potential limitations, of note taking on encoding. However,it is important to note that the test measures were based on cued recall versus free recall. A possible source of future research would be to replicate the experiments with free recall testmeasures. In addition, the research analysis did not provide a qualitative analysis of the notestaken by students. An analysis of the qualitative features of the notes, such as the use of diagrams, would have helped to augment the findings. Also, as noted by the authors, thisresearch provides an incomplete analysis of the relationship between note content and problem-solving performance.