I came across a study on notetaking behavior that I thought might be a missing link in the other notetaking ideas I have been reading lately. Kiewra is a name that comes up repeatedly in thois area of research. I am guessing one of his students (Luo), Kiewra and Samuelson published a study in 2017 proposing that storage and review may not be an adequate way to engage in product note use. Perhaps a three stage approach would be more productive. Rather than just recording and review, effective notetaking might benefit from an intermediate stage – revision.
Luo, et al. (2016) investigate revision during pauses in a presentation or for the same amount of time immediately after the presentation. They speculate about benefits mostly from the increase in content added as notes or a type of retrieval practice explanation for later achievement gains.
I admit that this seems different from what I would describe as a generative effect. A three stage model makes some sense. For example, the Cornell notetaking system was developed to encourage a revision process and this additional activity was about more than just adding content that had been missed. Aherns book on Smart Notes proposed several types of notes generated over time:
- Make fleeting notes.
- Make literature notes.
- Make permanent notes
Perhaps the focus on preparing for an exam is different than the Smart Note notion for long-term storage and personalized understanding. Whether for more meaningful use at a later date or to improve personal understanding, revision might make the most sense if was more what Ahrens had in mind.
Ahrens, S. (2017). How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking–for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers. Sönke Ahrens.
Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45-67.
