Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: Using technology to enhance self-regulated learning.
Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., & Yang, Y-S. (2011). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 313-322.
-
examining39Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-Monitoring v. Conventional, Application Test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.50 |
10.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-Monitoring v. Conventional, Factual test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.75 |
11.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-Monitoring v. Conventional, Procedural test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.75 |
5.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-No Monitoring vs. Conventional, Factual Test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.80 |
11.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-No Monitoring v. Conventional, Application test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.15 |
10.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Matrix-No Monitoring v. Conventional, Procedural test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.20 |
5.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Exp. 1: Matrix v. Conventional, Factual test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
43.00 |
36.80 |
No |
|
|
|
Exp. 2: Outline-No Monitoring v. Conventional, Application test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.20 |
10.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 2: Outline-Monitoring v. Conventional, Procedural test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.80 |
5.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 2: Outline-Monitoring v. Conventional, Application test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.90 |
10.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 2: Outline-No Monitoring v. Conventional, Procedural test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.50 |
5.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 2: Outline-Monitoring v. Conventional, Factual test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.75 |
11.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 2: Outline-No Monitoring v. Conventional, Factual test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.15 |
11.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Exp. 1: Outline v. Conventional, Factual test |
Coventional, Outline, or Matrix Note Taking (with and without Self-Monitoring Prompts) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.10 |
36.80 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
The two experiments in the study drew students from undergraduate educational psychology courses at a large Midwestern university.
Study sample
Students in Experiment 1 were between 18 and 21 years old. The average student in Experiment 1 was a junior. The average student in Experiment 2 was a junior, 21 years old. Further details were not provided by the author.
Intervention Group
In Experiment 1, intervention students took notes on a 2000-word passage about wildcats using one of two [structured online note taking methods]. The outline method organized the information students needed to collect into three hierarchical levels with labeled text boxes. The matrix method organized the information students needed to collect into a two-dimensional table, with labels on the rows and columns and text boxes in the cells. In Experiment 2, intervention students took notes on a 3500-word text on educational measurement that was divided into three webpages. Half of the students in each of the two note taking intervention groups saw a self-monitoring prompt at the bottom of each webpage that encouraged them to review their notes before moving on to the next page. In both experiments, students took notes on the passages in a computer lab on one day and returned four days later to review their notes and take the posttest.
Comparison Group
In Experiment 1, comparison students took notes on a 2000-word passage about wildcats using a [conventional note taking method]. The conventional method listed the information students needed to collect above a single text box lacking any structure or labeling. In Experiment 2, comparison students took notes on a 3500-word text on educational measurement that was divided into three webpages. Half of the comparison students using the conventional note taking method saw a self-monitoring prompt at the bottom of each webpage that encouraged them to review their notes before moving on to the next page. In both experiments, students took notes on the passages in a computer lab on one day and returned four days later to review their notes and take the posttest.
Support for implementation
The study was completed in a computer lab. Students read the texts in electronic format and took notes on a computer.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).