NOTETAKING: DO WE HEED EXPERT ADVICE? Robert A. Palmatier*

Transcription

1 158 NOTETAKING: DO WE HEED EXPERT ADVICE? Robert A. Palmatier* Notetaking, although an integral part of the educational endeavor, receives little research or instructional attention. Only five experimental efforts relating to the value or teaching of notetaking techniques have been reported since the turn of the century (Corey, 1935; Crawford, 1925; Greene, 1934; McClendon, 1958; Palmatier, 1968). A search of the literature seems to indicate an assumption that training in the skills of notetaking can be accomplished by reading about how to do it. Nearly all references to notetaking techniques are limited to how-to-study or high school English texts, and even these usually assume basic skills and merely offer suggestions for improving notetaking. Only one article during the past seventy years dealt with suggestions for training notetaking skills (Woodhouse, 1967). In addition to the limited attention given notetaking in the educational literature there seems to be even a still greater element of inattention. There is a substantial body of expert opinion on which notetaking procedures might be based; however, students and teachers are apparently unaware of this available guidance. This article is designed to summarize the information on notetaking, as included in educational literature since 1900, and draw implications for current usage and training practices. *Dr. Palmatier is Assistant Professor of Reading, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens.

2 159 Reports of student study habits indicate that a majority of students take lecture notes and that the percentage of those who take notes is higher in groups of successful students than in groups of unsuccessful students (Charters, 1924; Charters, 1925; Coxe, 1933; Danskin & Burnett, 1952; Armstrong, 1956). Proof that notetaking is beneficial for the type and conditions of learning in the typical school situation is also available in the research literature. Repeated studies support the idea that notetaking is valuable in any situation where there is a delay between exposure to the material and testing on the content of the material, regardless of the type of testing used (Corey, 1935; Crawford, 1925; Greene, 1934; McClendon, 1958). With notetaking an accepted part of our educational system and research proving it worthy of such acceptance, what then is the problem? The writer concludes that there is a problem and that possibly it is symptomatic of the general tendency for educational practices to lag behind the findings and advice of researchers and educators. To discover the problem one need only compare the actual notetaking practices of students with those procedures recommended by the many available how-to-study texts. Although the recommended practices do in many cases appear to be contradictory, a survey of these books reveals several agreed-upon general principles for notetaking procedures and materials. Materials Materials are the first point where practice differs from the recommendations of the how-to-study specialists. The loose-leaf note-book is recommended by a sizeable majority of specialists (Bird, 1931; Bird & Bird, 1945; Dolan, 1945; Estabrooks, 1927; Headley, 1926; James, 1967, Pauk, 1962). Most of them also recommend a large notebook (preferably containing 8 x 10 inch paper or larger), so that notes need not be cramped. This nearly unanimous vote for large loose-leaf notebooks does not seem to have influenced teachers, students, and/or manufacturers, many of whom appear to exhibit a preference for the spiral notebook with non-removable and often far smaller pages than the 8 x 10 inch size recommended. Two pioneer how-to-study authorities (Bird, 1931; Crawford, 1926) and a contemporary writer (Pauk, 1962) advocate the use of only one side of a sheet of paper in notetaking. Bird (1931)

3 160 reasons that this allows the student to spread out in front of him the notes on several lectures at one time. Others mention that having material on one side only facilitates comparing of information and reordering of notes into logical rather than presentation order. Recommended Practices As the study of notetaking recommendations moves from materials to procedures, agreement among the experts becomes less obvious. Several experts advise against the use of shorthand for notetaking (Crawford, 1926; Frederick, Ragsdale & Salisbury, 1938; Laycock & Russell, 1941), while a large number advise students to use abbreviations and devise their own shorthand and symbols for common terms and repeated items (Clifford, 1941; Crawford, 1926; Dolan, 1945; Edwards, 1920; Headley, 1926; James, 1927; Pauk, 1962). Rather than actually holding totally opposite views, both groups appear to support the necessity for maintaining meaning as a vital criterion for notetaking ahead of the demand for time-saving short cuts. The form or style of notes is commented on by several writers. Without reference to experimentation or survey of successful student usage, many advise students to use an outline format (Armstrong, 1956; Bird & Bird, 1945; Crawford, 1926; Dolan, 1954; Edwards, 1920; Frederick, Kitchen & McElwee, 1947; Federick, Ragsdale & Salisbury, 1938; Gilbert, 1966; Jones, 1929; Kipplinger, 1957; Muse, 1929; Pressey & Ferguson, 1921). It is not clear from the manner in which these authors use the term "outlining" if they really are, or only seem to be, advocating that the precise skill of formal outlining be applied to notes made from lectures. One study which asked students to enumerate their study procedures found that 86 percent of a group of superior students used what was called an outline form (Danskin & Burnett, 1952). Other writers favor allowing individual style and needs to direct the determination of an individual's notetaking format (Dominic, 1962; James, 1967; Pauk, 1962). Although these writers also fail to cite experimental support for their recommendations, the current trend would seem to be away from the traditional recommendations of formal outline procedure. Those writers who do not advocate the use of a formal outline format suggest that indentations, enumerations and symbols should be systemtized by

4 161 each individual notetaker (Headley, 1926; James, 1967; Maxwell, 1900; Pauk, 1962). In addition to the above areas of opinion, the literature reveals considerable agreement in the recommendations made to students concerning notetaking. The present review of the literature found the situation unchanged since an earlier review by Corey (1935), who reported: Students are told to pay close attention to the lecturer, take notes in outline form, to get things down accurately, to guard against writing down too much, to label their notes carefully, to keep them neat, to let the notes be a record of the student's thoughts as well as the lecturer's statements, to review soon after the notes are taken, and so on (pp ). New Trends? In view of recent recommendations of new ways of notetaking, one would suspect that support for formal outlining is waning. This suspicion itself becomes highly suspect after studying Headley's (1926) procedure, and its non-adoption. Rather like several more recently published methods, Headley advocated a format using columns and eliminating the use of an outline style. Thus, the new methods currently being advocated may merely be "recycled" version of those which failed to catch on forty years ago. The literature is well stocked with recommendations concerning notetaking practices. These recommendations appear to have been generated without the support of research or extensive examination of successful student usage and seem to have changed little over the past sixty years. Where, then, are we? Notetaking practices do not seem to reflect the findings and the advice of how-to-study experts even though similar advice has been offered by most who have written on the topic during the past seventy years. New formats and procedures have been offered at various times but have never been adopted by a significant number of teachers and students. Thus, it appears that while teachers and students feel that notetaking is important and do in fact make use of it, they have not taken seriously, or possibly are not even aware of, the information and advice available concerning notetaking materials and procedures. Why is this true?

5 162 Do Teachers Teach Notetaking? This author finds neither research nor opinions in the writings on notetaking to explain the apparent lack of change and effort in the area of notetaking practices. However, an opinion can be ventured. Informal questioning of high school students, college students, and teachers in graduate courses indicates that maybe no one in our educational organization really takes the responsibility for teaching students the skills of notetaking. At least most students report not being able to remember ever being taught to take notes, although most recall being expected to take notes as early as fourth and, in some cases, third grade. A look at the materials used in our schools confirms that formal training in the skills of notetaking has not been given a specific place in the grammar school or high school curriculum. The idea is mentioned frequently in English texts but is usually followed by practice in completing formal outlines and exhortations similar to those quoted above by Corey (1935). Thus, this author has become suspicious that students are told to take notes, vaguely admonished to do it well, but never really trained in how to take and use notes. Also indicative of this lack of actual training in notetaking is the state of the literature. During the first seventy years of this century only four efforts at training students in the skills of notetaking have been reported (Corey, 1935; Jones, 1929; Palmatier, 1968; Woodhouse, 1967). Of the four efforts reported only two were experimental efforts designed to measure the effects of training students in notetaking skills (Corey, 1935). The other two were reports of procedures for teaching notetaking which the instructors felt were highly successful (Jones, 1929; Woodhouse, 1967). Only the latest investigation (Palmatier, 1968) was designed to compare the effectiveness of several notetaking procedures. Thus, the author must conclude that the state of the art in the area of practices in and training of notetaking shows not only a lag between recommended and actual practices but also little effort to guide student development of these reportedly beneficial skills. Where Do We Go From Here? What can and should teachers and educators do to catch up with the times and insure notetaking prowess in our students? The

6 163 solution would seem to be a double-barreled approach. It is first up to teachers to become aware of the facts about notetaking and the recommendations of experts, as reported earlier in this article and more fully elsewhere by this author (Palmatier, 1968). Once teachers are aware of the information currently available, they need to begin passing this on to their students, pressuring bookstores to provide the educationally best rather than the popular materials, and experimenting with procedures for teaching notetaking skills. Vital to the future of study skills is this experimentation with teaching techniques. Only by specifically teaching the techniques of notetaking and reporting the results can we be assured that notetaking is being taught and that teachers are, in fact, interested in seeking best methods for teaching notetaking. REFERENCES ARMSTRONG, WILLIAM H. Study is Hard Work. New York: Harper & Brothers, BIRD, CHARLES. Effective Study Habits. New York: Century Publishers, BIRD, CHARLES and BIRD, DOROTHY M. Learning More by Effective Study. New York: D. Appleton-Century, CHARTERS, JESSIE A. "Methods of Study Used by College Women." Journal of Educational Research 10: , December CHARTERS, JESSIE A. "How Two Hundred and Fifty-eight Junior College Women Study." Journal of Educational Research 11:41-48, January CLIFFORD, CHARLES W. "How to Study." National Educational Association Journal 30:25-26, January COREY, STEPHEN M. "The Efficacy of Instruction in Note Making." Journal of Educational Psychology 26: , February 1935.

7 164 COXE, W. W. Directed Study: A Review of the Theory and an Analysis of the Practices in New York State Schools. Albany, New York: University of New York (Bulletin No. 1025), CRAWFORD, C. C. "The Correlation Between College Lecture Notes and Quiz Papers." Journal of Educational Research 12: , November CRAWFORD, C. C. Methods of Study. Moscow, Idaho: Author, DANSKIN, D. G. and BURNETT, C. W. "Study Techniques of Those Superior Students." Personnel & Guidance Journal 31: , December DOLAN, FRANK D. "How to Take Notes." Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:supplement 28, October DOMINIC, FR, Methodology of Study and Scientific Work. Alwaye, India: J. M. Press, EDWARDS, AUSTIN S. The Fundamental Principles of Learning and Study. Baltimore: Warwick & York, ESTABROOK, G. H. "Systems of Note-taking." School and Society 26: , December FREDERICK, ROBERT W., KITCHEN, PAUL C. and McELWEE, AGNES R. A Guide to College Study. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, FREDERICK, ROBERT W., RAGSDALE, CLARENCE E. and SALISBURY, RACHEL. Directing Learning. New York: Apple ton-century, GREENE, EDWARD B. "Certain Aspects of Lecture, Reading, and Guided Reading." School and Society 39: , May HEADLEY, LEAL A. How to Study in College. New York: Holt, JAMES, D. E. A Student's Guide to Efficient Study. London: Pergamon Press, JONES, EDWARD S. "The Preliminary Course on 'How to Study' for Freshmen Entering College." School and Society 29: , June KIPLINGER, S. R. "How to Take Notes." Changing Times Magazine 11:96-98, April LAYCOCK, SAMUEL R. and RUSSELL, DAVID H. "An Analysis of Thirty-eight How to Study Manuals." School Review 49: , May MAXWELL, M., ET AL. "Notetaking and Notebooks." Educational Review 19:99-101, January McCLENDON, P. I. "An Experimental Study of the Relationship Between the Note-taking Practices and Listening Comprehension of College Freshmen During Expository Lecture." Speech Monograph, 25: , August MUSE, MAUDE B. An Introduction to Efficient Study Habits According to

8 165 the Laws and Principles Governing Economical Learning. Philadelphia: Sanders, PALMATIER, ROBERT A. Acquisition and Utility of Three Notetaking Procedures Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, (University Microfilms Publication No ). PAUK, WALTER How to Study in College. New York: Houghton Mifflin, PRESSEY, LUELLA C. and JESSIE M. Student's Guide to Efficient Study New York: Richard R. Smith, WOODHOUSE, C. G. "Using Tape to Teach Note-taking." NEA Journal 56:53, December NEWS FROM USOE The U.S. Office of Education is expected to release a formal request for proposals to implement Phase I of the Targeted Research and Development Program on Reading. The USOE decision to implement this new program is the direct result of a planning project conducted by Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. During the planning project, Dr. William J. Gephart, Phi Delta Kappa's Director of Research Services, coordinated the efforts of three separate planning groups through use of the Convergence Technique. USOE management of the Targeted R & D Program on Reading will be facilitated by continued application of Technique in up-dating the program plan and in making funding decisions. JRB readers are reminded that the Commerce Business Daily, available at $15.00 per year from the Superintendent of Documents, Commerce Business Daily, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C , will carry full particulars on this and all other formal requests for proposals initiated by USOE.