Optimising the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning

Taking notes is of uttermost importance in academic and commercial use and success. Different techniques for note-taking utilise different cognitive processes and strategies. This experimental study examined ways to enhance cognitive performance via different note-taking techniques. By comparing performances of traditional, linear style note-taking with alternative nonlinear technique, we aimed to examine the efficiency and importance of different ways of taking notes. Twenty-six volunteer adult learners from an information management course participated in this study. Cognitive performance scores from a traditional linear note-taking group were compared with another group by using a commercially available non-linear note-taking technique. Both groups were tested in two settings: after a classroom lecture and a panel forum discussion. Tasks included measures on story comprehension, memory, complexity of mental representations and metacognitive skills. Data analysis revealed that the non-linear note-takers were significantly better than the linear group both in terms of the quantity and the quality of the learned material. This study demonstrates the importance of using cognitively compatible note-taking techniques. It identifies the cognitive mechanisms behind effective note-taking and knowledge representation. Using such techniques enables deeper understanding and more integrated knowledge management. Background Note taking is one of the first and most established cognitive technology (Dror, 2007). As such, it offloads cognitive processes and extends our ‘in head’ cognitive abilities (Dror & Harnad, 2008). A great controversy in academic performance is that although students rely vastly on their information acquisition and representational skills (Armbruster, 2000), their note-taking efficiency is only around 20–40% in a typical British Journal of Educational Technology (2008) doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00906.x © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. lecture situation (Kiewra, 1985). In fact, a study found that the level of details in lecture notes accounted for half of the variance in students’ final test scores (Titsworth & Kiewra, 1998). Therefore, much of learning is dependent on utilising appropriate strategies during knowledge acquisition. From a cognitive psychology point of view, note-taking is a central aspect of a complex human behaviour related to information management that involves a range of underlying mental processes and their interactions with other cognitive functions (Piolat, Olive & Kellogg, 2005). Note-takers not only need to comprehend and write down personally flavoured information but, before that, they also need to acquire and filter the incoming sources, organise and restructure existing knowledge structures and, most importantly, they must store and integrate the freshly processed material. Therefore, the aim of a cognitive analysis of note-taking is to describe these mental processes, knowledge representations and memory functions. Note-taking depends largely on the ‘working memory’ (WM; Baddeley, 2007). When taking notes of a presentation, we maintain a short-term memory buffer in order to acquire, mentally represent, select and understand the continuous flow of incoming new information and to update and interact with the already-stored knowledge (Piolat et al, 2005). WM during note-taking contributes to processes such as cognitive load (Yeung, Jin & Sweller, 1997), comprehension (Daneman & Merikle, 1996) or writing (Levy & Ransdell, 2002). However, note-taking is constrained by the same capacity limits as WM. Katayama and Robinson (2000) argued that the primary obstacle of good-quality notes is the amount of cognitive overload experienced by the students. On the level of the individual note-taker, the metacognitive knowledge is often reported as a key factor in academic performance (Hacker, Dunlosky & Graesser, 1998). Metacognition is the knowledge about knowledge that is truly a critical skill from the very beginning of our literate existence that reflects on the highest level of cognitive functioning in which the human note-takers need to be reflective and aware of their own abilities of recording information in writing. The complexity of the cognitive operations and the knowledge involved in a process such as note-taking require note-takers to actively control what they are doing and to master the way they work. This metacognitive knowledge allows them to plan their activity, to evaluate and regulate it (Rémond, 2003). Garcia-Mila and Andersen (2007) further argued that metacognition is important for at least two reasons. First, as learners often misperceive the task demands and their own future state of knowledge, they do not see the utility of note-taking. Second, these misperceptions make learners not refer back to their notes and thereby miss feedback that would refine their metacognitive knowledge and strategy use. Non-linear note-taking techniques Piolat et al (2005) argued that the most fundamental reason behind the development of different note-taking styles and techniques is severe time pressure. In laboratory experiments, researchers measured the average rate of speech as being 2–3 words per second, while the average handwriting speed as only around 0.2–0.3 words per second. These figures demonstrate the need and relevance of a good temporal information 2 British Journal of Educational Technology © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. management technique. The problem is exacerbated when one considers that the notetakers need to learn. In contrast to court reports and other special situations where shorthand typists need to record verbatim the spoken words, note-takers in general are there to learn the semantic meaning. Thus, note-taking is not an objective by its own right but a tool and an aid for learning. Previous studies revealed mixed overall results of non-linear note-taking strategies (see Table 1 for an overview of such strategies) with regard to their benefits in learning outcomes compared with linear recordings (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001; Hartley, 2002). For example, when participants in a study were directed to use particular styles of notes (outlining, matrix or traditional), Kiewra et al (1991) found no difference between the groups in memory tests either immediately after learning or after a short review period. However, the majority of the researchers agree that graphs and concept maps can be useful in selecting, encoding and organising information that leads to better remembering of the study materials (Robinson, Katayama, DuBois & DeVaney, 1998; Samarawickrema & O’Reilly, 2003). There is supporting evidence that organised and well-structured notes positively correlate with test scores and overall learning benchmarks in students (Titsworth & Kiewra, 1998, 2004). Titsworth (2004) argued that organisational cues of lecture notes enhance academic performance because they can help students to reduce their cognitive loads by providing determined note structures. Nevertheless, the outcomes of taking notes in a non-linear format highly depend on the actual technique used and the competence in utilising it. SmartWisdom: A non-linear example of note-taking Several commercial and freely available non-linear note-taking approaches exist (see Table 1 for a list). An exhaustive overview of all these methods is beyond the scope Table 1: List of non-linear note-taking techniques Name of the technique Reference(s) Clustering Rico (1983) Concept mapping Canas et al (2003); Novak and Gowin (1984) Cornell system Pauk (2001) Idea mapping Nast (2006) Instant replays Turley (1989) Ishikawa diagram Ishikawa (1984) Knowledge maps O’Donnell, Dansereau and Hall (2002) Learning maps Rose and Nicholl (1997) Mind mapping Buzan (2000); Catchpole and Garland (1996); Gruneberg and Mathieson (1997); Hartley (2002); Mento, Martinelli and Jones (1999) Model maps Caviglioli and Harris (2000) Pyramid principle Minto (1987) Semantic networks Lehmann (1992); Sowa (1991) SmartWisdom Kemp (2006) Optimising the use of note-taking 3 © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. of this paper. For the purpose of this research, we selected one of the non-linear notetaking techniques—the SmartWisdom (Smart Wisdom Ltd, London, UK) approach— and compared it against traditional, linear note-takings (see Figures 1 and 2 for examples of the two types of notes). We had multiple rationales for using SmartWisdom as the non-linear technique in our study. First, it is a highly developed and broadly used note-taking method with hundreds of active users within the UK. Second, this technique shares the main characteristic features (see later in this section) with most nonlinear techniques, which makes the findings in this study more applicable and valid. Finally, and beyond these theoretical justifications, on a more pragmatic level, we had access to SmartWisdom users, including before and after training, and those who have used this technique for a long time. Information in the SmartWisdom technique is recorded in real-time and graphically represented in an organised, semi-hierarchical format (Figure 1). The blank SmartWisdom notebook sheets are used in a landscape orientation and feature four concentric circles in the middle of the page. These circles guide the note-taking process by providing a structured border to the first few levels of the recorded information. The SmartWisdom technique uses single words with capitalised letters as base units of the notes instead of full sentences. These base units are written over simple curved lines Figure 1: Example of a non-linear type note with SmartWisdom methodology 4 British Journal of Educational Technology © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Figure 2: Example of a traditional linear note (2 pages) Optimising the use of note-taking 5 © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Figure 2: Continued 6 British Journal of Educational Technology © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (stems), and all stems can be traced back to one of the small triangles (spacers) drawn around the innermost circle. The stems can—but not necessarily have to—branch into a further series of three stems on all levels. The interconnected stems form an overall treelike structure that preserves the time structure of the presentation as all SmartWisdom notes go clockwise and start from the uppermost positioned and slightly righthand tilted first spacer. Although, in most cases, the critical pieces of information are on the first few levels and more details are represented in the outer regions, the main emphasis is on the real-time flow of the recordings followed by the hierarchical structuring. As with most non-linear techniques, SmartWisdom notes are on a single sheet. Hence, the whole of the recorded presentation can be overviewed with no interruptions of page turnings, providing a good holistic overview. The created SmartWisdom notes can be instantly used after—or even during—note-taking as they do not require further preparations or amendments. Important points, actions or future questions can be highlighted with different codes and colours, but, in general, the use of graphics or contrast marking is kept to a minimum. Reviewing SmartWisdom notes may focus on a particular part (ie, examining a series of stems or spacers), all the headings contained in one of the circles, or it may be holistic (ie, replaying the entire presentation). In either case, the review process goes along the flow of the recordings as the information is read out by following the clockwise-interconnected stems. Compared with traditional linear notes (Figure 2), where sentences follow a fixed sequence, the non-linear branching in SmartWisdom allows some variability in reading back and interpreting the recorded information; nevertheless, it promotes the use of the original expressions and terminology. Objective of this study In this paper we present a comparative study of two different note-taking techniques (traditional linear and non-linear SmartWisdom) based on cognitive measures that are essential for efficient and effective academic performance. Two groups of participants were tested in a between-participants design. Academic performance was measured in both groups and in two settings: after a classroom lecture and a panel forum discussion. Our research questions were: • Do learners with a typical non-linear note-taking technique perform better than traditional note-takers on tests of comprehension, accuracy and memory? • What are the cognitive underpinnings of differences in learning efficiencies, if any, between linear and non linear note-takers? • How would non-linear notes influence the cognitive structure of knowledge representations? • What is the effect of different note-taking strategies on the learners’ metacognitive skills? The experimental tasks in our study measured comprehension, accuracy, complexity of knowledge representation, memory and metacognitive skills. Our study was aiming to identify optimal cognitive processing within those note-taking strategies that promote Optimising the use of note-taking 7 © 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. good academic performance. We hypothesised that participants with non-linear notes are cognitively more effective than the traditional linear group. This might be based on their better optimised information management system.