Among undergraduates in a carefully controlled design, 9 students who took notes studied longer than groups of 30 and 17 who did not. No differences were observed on test scores, retention interval, comprehension scores, or reading rate. Whether students expected multiple-choice or free-recall testing, strategies were similar, suggesting study oriented to rote learning.
References
1.
AnnisL. F.AnnisD. B. (1982) A normative study of students’ reported preferred study techniques. Reading World, 21, 201–207.
2.
BloomB. S. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook: I. The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
3.
CookL. K.MayerR. E. (1983) Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In PressleyM.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 87–131.
4.
FeldtR. C. (1989) College students’ study strategies, metacognitive awareness, and recall of content-area prose. (Manuscript submitted for publication)
5.
GarnerR. (1982) Verbal-report data on reading strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 159–167.
6.
HareV. C. (1981) Readers’ problem identification and problem solving strategies for highland low-knowledge articles. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 359–365.
7.
HareV.PulliamC. A. (1980) College students’ metacognitive awareness of reading behavior. In KamilM. L.MoeA. J. (Eds.), Perspectives in reading research and instruction. (29th Yearbook) Washington, DC: National Reading Conference. Pp. 226–231.
8.
MayerR. E. (1987) Instructional variables that influence cognitive processes during reading. In BrittonB. K.GlynnS. M. (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 201–216.
