STRATEGIC NOTE TAKING FOR MIDDLE-SCHOOL STUDENTS … · skills, note-taking has been suggested as one method to assist them during lectures that are auditory in nature (Ward-Lonergan

STRATEGIC NOTE TAKING FOR MIDDLE-SCHOOLSTUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

IN SCIENCE CLASSES

Joseph R. Boyle

Abstract. While today's teachers use a variety of teaching meth-ods in middle-school science classes, lectures and note-taking stillcomprise a major portion of students' class time. To be successfulin these classes, middle-school students need effective listeningand note-taking skills. Students with learning disabilities (LD)are poor note-takers, which negatively impacts their academicperformance. This investigation sought to examine the effects ofstrategic note-taking on the recall and comprehension of middle-school students with LD. Forty students with LD were randomlyassigned to either an experimental or a control group. Usingstrategic note-taking, students in the experimental group weretaught to record notes independently while viewing a videotapedscience lecture. Students who were taught strategic note-takingscored significantly higher on measures of immediate free recall/long-term free recall, comprehension, and number of lecturepoints and words recorded in their notes than students in a con-trol group who used conventional note-taking. The limitations ofthe research and implications of this technique for classroomapplication are discussed.

JOSEPH R. BOYLE, Ph.D., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) was amended in 1997, and subsequently in2004, schools have been required to provide studentswith disabilities access to the general education curricu-lum and instruction in grade-level concepts from thecontent-area classes such as science, social studies, andmath (Gersten, Baker, Smith-Johnson, Dimino, &Petersen, 2006). Access to the curriculum goes beyondmere placement with same-aged peers. In fact, IDEAmandates that students with disabilities are to beinvolved in and advance within the general educationcurriculum (Deshler et al., 2001; Soukup, Wehmeyer,Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). The belief is that meaning-

ful access to the general education curriculum will allowstudents to learn core content and, in the process, passstate tests (Deshler, Schumaker, Bui, & Vernon, 2006).In order for this to occur, students with learning dis-abilities (LD) need to learn new strategies to becomeengaged with the content, particularly when teacherspresent content through traditional means, such as lec-tures and discussions.

Learning through traditional teaching formats (e.g.,lectures) in content areas such as science entails usingeffective listening and note-taking skills. A lack ofthese skills frequently means that students with LDmiss out on important content (Scruggs, Mastropieri,

Volume 33, Spring 2010 93

Berkeley, & Graetz, in press; Stringfellow & Miller,2005). While today's teachers use a variety of teachingmethods in content areas, lecture and note-taking stillcomprise a major portion of students' class time. Forexample, one recent investigation found that 79% ofcontent-area teachers reported that they "regularly use"or "mostly use" lectures during their teaching (Vogler,2006). Similarly, in a national survey of more than 500middle-school science teachers, respondents reportedthat nearly two thirds of their science classes involvedstudents listening to and taking notes during lectures(Fulp, 2002). Similar results have been found in math-ematics, in that middle-school teachers report that lec-tures and note-taking occur in 80% of their mathclasses and that they take place, on average, 36% of thetime in these classes (Hudson, McMahon, & Overstreet,2002).

In most science classes, teachers reiy on textbooksthat are aligned with state standards to teach concepts,facts, and vocabulary (Huber & Moore, 2002; Scruggs,Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). And it is from thistextbook-driven curriculum, which is comprised ofnumerous science concepts, heaviiy iaden vocabulary,and related facts (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Krooczynski, 2002; Scruggs et al., 2007; Scruggs,Mastropieri, & Oklo, 2008), that teachers develop dailyclass lectures and lessons (Harniss, Dickson, Kinder, &Hollenbeck, 2001).

In turn, the content of lectures often forms the basisfor teacher-made tests and quizzes. Putnam, Deshler,and Schumaker (1993) found that teachers' "lectureswere the major source of information [upon] which testquestions were based" (p. 340). In addition, teachersreported that in their secondary content classes almosthalf of a student's grade was derived from students' per-formance on these tests (Putnam et al., 1993).

In order for students with LD to be successful in theseclasses, they must learn from lectures that move at aquick pace and are comprised of many facts and vocab-ulary (Scruggs et al., in press; Suritsky, 1992; Vaughn,Schumm, & Shay, 1994). Even though learning fromlectures is difficult for students with LD (Boyle, 2009;Hughes & Suritsky, 1994; Stringfeilow & Miiler, 2005;Suritsky, 1992), gênerai education teachers haveacknowledged that all students must be able to takenotes and learn from lectures in order to do well intheir classes (Suritsky & Hughes, 1996). Researchers(Knowlton, 1983; Schumaker & Deshler, 1984) havefound that middle- and high-school teachers haveranked note-taking and listening skills as some of thetop skills that students should have in their classes, andothers (Snyder & Bambara, 1997) have reported thatsimilar survival skills are needed in today's secondarycontent area classrooms.

Despite the importance of being able to record noteseffectively in content-area classes, students with LD arepoor note-takers. One recent study (Boyle, 2009) foundthat middle-school students with LD recorded only 13%of the total lectures points (TLP) for a science lecture,compared to students with no learning disabilities(NLD), who recorded 25% of the TLP. Furthermore,even when provided with cued lecture points (CLP) (i.e.,emphasis and organizational cues) throughout the lec-ture, middle-school students with LD recorded only18% of the CLP, compared to students with NLD, whorecorded 43% of the CLP. This study additionaliy foundthat CLP was moderately correlated (.53) with students'test performance.

Recording cued notes is important for studentsbecause teachers often use emphasis cues (e.g., "Youshould remember that ...") immediateiy preceding asalient lecture point (e.g., "... in Paraguay, burrowingtoads form a cocoon around themselves to prevent waterloss ...") to cail attention to its importance. Further,teachers expect that all students record this cued lecturepoint in their notes (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004).

A second type of cued lecture point, an organizationalcue (e.g., "There are six adaptation strategies used bytoads during the dry season."), helps students by pro^viding a framework for organizing certain aspects oflecture content and assists students in discerning impor-tant from less important lecture content (Titsworth,2001a, 2001b). Researchers believe that organizationalcues help students process information more efficientlythrough a natural "chunking" process, thereby reducingthe load on working memory (Cowan, 1995;Gathercole, Durling, Evans, Jeffcock, & Stone, 2007).

Regardiess of the type of lecture cue, these cuesincrease the amount of notes that students record and,uitimately, increase their achievement on comprehen-sion and recall measures (Titsworth, 2001a, 2001b;Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). Hence, when these cues arepresented in lectures, all students should record thecued lecture points in their notes.

In studies on the problems that students with LDexperience during class lectures, researchers have shownthat students with LD demonstrate both poor listeningskills and poor note-taking skills. For. example, Hughesand Suritsky (1994) found significant differences amongcollege students with LD and NLD who recorded notesduring a lecture. Their resuits showed that college stu-dents with LD who viewed a videotaped lecture whilerecording notes recorded fewer cued lecture points,fewer non-cued lecture points, and, overall, fewer totallecture points. Specifically, college students with LDrecorded only 36% of cued lecture points, whereas stu-dents with NLD recorded 56% of the lecturer's notes.Further, students with LD recorded 50% of overall

Learning Disability Quarterly 94

lecture information units compared to 60% for NLDstudents.

In terms of listening during lectures, Ward-Lonergan,Lilies, and Anderson (1998, 1999) performed twostudies that examined the effects of listening skills dur-ing lectures. Although student note-taking was notinvolved, these studies illustrate the learning problemsthat students with LD encounter during lectures. In thefirst study, Ward-Lonergan et al. (1998) compared theperformance of middle-school students with languagelearning disabilities (LLD) with that of students withNLD who watched two 5-minute lectures (i.e., compar-ison versus causation) on social studies. Results showedthat students with NLD performed significantly betterthan students with LLD on both types of lectures,regardless of the type of question (i.e., literal versusinferential questions).

In a second study, similar to the first, Ward-Lonerganet al. (1999) again compared the performance of mid-dle-school students with LLD and with NLD whoviewed two 5-minute social studies lectures using acomparison or causation format, but with differentcontent. In this study, students viewed two lecturesand, after each lecture, verbally retold the content ofthe lecture while being audiotaped. Students' retellswere assessed by counting T-units. Students with NLDrecalled significantly more information than studentswith LLD on all of the measures in terms of linguisticproductivity (number of T-units, number of subordi-nate clauses, and percentage of lecture points), syntac-tic complexity (number of subordinate clauses perT-unit), and efficiency (number of T-units per second,number of lecture components per T-unit, and numberof lecture components per second).

The ramifications of ineffective listening and note-taking skills are often detrimental to student learningand recall, particularly for students with LD. To succeedin middle-school science classes, these students mustlearn these essential skills (Cawley, Kahn, & Tedesco,1989; Laidlaw, Skok, & McLaughlin, 1993; Ward-Lonergan et al., 1998, 1999).

Laidlaw et al. (1993) found that when students donot record notes, they perform more poorly on testsand quizzes (students' scores averaged 44%) than whenthey do record notes during lectures (students' scoresincreased to an average of 79%). Likewise, middle-school students with NLD who recorded "more notes"(i.e., ideas and words) outperformed students whorecorded fewer notes on tests of recall and recognition(Risch & Kiewra, 1990).

For students with LD who exhibit poor listeningskills, note-taking has been suggested as one method toassist them during lectures that are auditory in nature(Ward-Lonergan et al., 1998, 1999). Of the note-taking

techniques relevant for K-12 students with disabilitiesfor use during lectures, only two research-based tech-niques are available in the literature: guided notes andstrategic note-taking.

Guided notes have been used for students with dis-abilities (Lazarus, 1991, 1993: Study 1; Patterson, 2005;Sweeney et al., 1999) in K-12 schoolsettings during lec-tures. The majority of these studies found that once K-12 school students with mild disabilities were trainedto use guided notes, they exhibited greater gains ontests (over baseline periods), and often the greatestgains were found when guided notes were used with ashort review or study period.

The second note-taking technique, strategic note-taking (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001), has been found tobe effective for high-school students with mild disabil-ities. When these students were trained to use strategicnote-taking to record notes of videotaped lectures,they outperformed control subjects who used conven-tional note-taking techniques on immediate free recall,long-term recall, quiz performance (i.e., comprehen-sion), and total recorded notes (Boyle & Weishaar,2001). To date, only two studies (Boyle & Weishaar,2001; Patterson, 2005) have sought to examine theeffects of a note-taking technique on student learningduring science lectures.

While guided notes are effective for students withdisabilities, preparing guided notes by reviewing thecontent of the lecture and then transcribing it inguided-note form for students is very time intensive forteachers. Even though general education teachersexpect students with LD to meet the same evaluativecriteria as NLD students (Schumm et al., 1995),researchers found that general education science andsocial studies teachers were often reluctant to makechanges in their teaching or presentation mode for stu-dents with mild disabilities (Mclntosh, Vaughn,Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993; Schumm & Vaughn,1991, 1995) and were concerned that making adapta-tions in their classes for these students would come atthe expense of students without disabilities (Vaughn,Schumm, & Kouzekanani, 1993). In fact, most generaleducation teachers have to cover vast quantities ofinformation at a relatively quick pace in order for stu-dents to pass end-of-the-year state tests and smoothlytransition to more advanced courses (Deshler et al.,2006; Schumm et al., 1995), making it difficult to findthe time to make and use adaptations for students withdisabilities, such as guided notes. .

A more efficient approach to note-taking would be toteach students with disabilities note-taking strategiesand techniques that they could use independent ofteacher assistance. One such independent approach,strategic note-taking, initially might be time intensive

Volume 33, Spring 2010 95

to teach to students (typically two class sessions); how-ever, in the long run, a technique such as this makesstudents more independent learners and may generalizeto multiple settings, such as other general educationcontent-area classes, making the initial time investmentworthwhile. Furthermore, an independent approachwould not require general education teachers to makemany adjustments in their lecture style or content noradd preparation to their workload. Unlike guided notes,which must be prepared in advance of class, strategicnote-taking offers a note-taking technique that can beused with different types of science content (earth sci-ence and life science) and with no teacher preparation.Finally, because note-taking skills are used in secondary,postsecondary, and even work environments, it is essen-tial that students learn how to record notes and not

have to rely on others to record notes for them. Strategicnote-taking meets these goals by providing studentswith a basic set of skills that they can use in a variety ofsettings and with different types of lecture content.

Given the paucity of literature on research-basednote-taking techniques for school-age students withLD, the current study sought to extend the research byassessing the effects of strategic note-taking on the per-formance of middle-school students with LD.

Specifically, the study sought to address the follow-ing four research questions:

1. Will students who used strategic note-takingrecord more notes overall?

2. Will students who used strategic note-taking per-form better on recall measures and a comprehen-sion test?

Table 1Characteristics of Participants

Gender:MaleFemale

Ethnicity:African-AmericanEuropean-AmericanHispanic-AmericanAsian-American

IQ Scores:Mean Full Scale(SD)

Achievement Test:Mean Reading(SD)

Mean Written Language(SD)

Mean Mathematics(SD)

Writing Sample:Mean LPM(SD)

Control Group(JV = 20)

119

21350

103.90(11,39)

93.60(12,16)

96,57(12.93)

85.75(15.30)

68.75(16.43)

Experimental Group(N = 20)

119

31502

99.95(12,42)

91.23(11.53)

93.64(10.06)

94.86(8.82)

67.15(20,32)

Learning Disability Quarterly 96

3. Will students who used strategic note-takingrecord more cued lecture points?

4. Will students who used strategic note-taking recallmore cued lecture points?

METHODParticipants and Setting

Using an experimental group-control design (Kerlinger,1986), 40 students with LD in sixth through eighthgrade were randomly assigned to either a control oran experimental group, each group being comprisedof 11 males and 9 females (see Table 1). The composi-tion of the group was 70% European-American, 12.5%Hispanic-American, 12.5% African-American, and 5%Asian-American. The subjects, whose ages ranged from11.5 to 15.7, were drawn from seven science classes attwo middle schools.

All of the students were identified as having a specificlearning disability and were determined eligible for serv-ices by their respective school districts through testingthat used severe discrepancy methodology (i.e., intelli-gence and academic achievement). Each district's eligi-bility policies closely followed state and federalguidelines. Using the state definition of LD, studentswere required to have an average or above-average IQscore and difficulties in one or more of the followingareas: oral expression, listening comprehension, writtenexpression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills,reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, ormathematics problem solving.

Students with LD were assessed on IQ using either theWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III or IV(Wechsler, 1991, 2003), and their achievement wasassessed using the Woodcock Johnson Tests ofAchievement III (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001)or the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II(Wechsler, 2001). On IQ tests (e.g., WISC-III. or WISC-IV), the mean full scale standard for the group was 102.On the achievement tests, the average standard score inreading was 92.5, 95.3 in written language, and 90.0 inmathematics. None of the students had any reportedhistory in their records of hearing impairments, visualimpairments, physical impairments, or emotional disor-ders.

The students attended one of two middle schools(with approximately 537 and 625 students, respectively)located near a large metropolitan city in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. All of the studentswere enrolled in middle-school science classes, and theresearch took place in these classes with both the gen-eral education and the special education teacher presentin the room. The teachers did not participate in anycomponent of the study. Rather, the investigator carriedout all of the training and data collection.

The investigator initially administered a 3-minutewriting measure to assess how fast students with LD ,could write with little or no mental effort (Hughes &Suritsky, 1994). This measure was used as a pretreat-ment measure. This same type of writing measure hasbeen used in other studies (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001;Hughes & Suritsky, 1994; Lee, Lan, Hamman, &Hendricks, 2008) and is similar to other 3-minute writ-ing tasks that serve as measures of writing speed(Gansle, Noell, VanDerHeyden, Naquin, & Slider, 2002).

Letters-per-minute probes have been associated withwriting proficiency (Marston, 1989) and have been sug-gested as one measure of writing fluency (Howell &Nolet, 2000). Peverly (2006) claimed that among stu-dents with fast handwriting speed, the load on workingmemory lessens, thereby enabling them to focus onother aspects of writing and note-taking.

In addition to random sampling of students into con-trol and experimental groups, a t test was conducted toensure that both groups were equivalent. The results ofthe initial analyses showed no significant differencesbetween the two groups on the 3-minute writing task,nor were there any significant differences between thetwo groups on IQ test scores.Materials

Two videotaped lectures were used, one for training(i.e.. Frogs and Toads) and one for the testing session(i.e., Sican Metal Workers). Videotaped lectures offerseveral advantages over live lectures. The videotapedlecture for the testing session controlled for extraneousvariables (e.g., pacing, intonation, pauses) that mighthave been present if the lecture had been presented"live" to multiple groups of students; similarly, thevideotaped lecture for the training session allowed for asecond presentation during the training (described indetail in the procedures section).

In addition to controlling for students' prior knowl-edge, and because the focus of the lecture was science,the testing session topic was drawn from a ScientificAmerican article entitled "Sican Metal Workers." Thecontent of the testing lecture described how craftsmenof the Middle Sican era created metal alloys for use inreligious ceremonies. This content was selected on thepresumption that the information would not be famil-iar to the participants. In fact, the topic and content isnot a learning standard listed in the state standards,and the science teachers whose students participated inthe study confirmed that students had not beenexposed to this topic.. Videotaped lectures were presented to students on a25-inch color television monitor. The videotaped lec-ture was 23 minutes long and was presented at an aver-age rate of 110 words per minute (WPM). This WPM rate

Volume 33, Spring 2010 97

falls within the middle range of "rates of presentation", in videotaped lectures that have be used in pastresearch: 75 WPM (Bretzing, Kulhavy, & Caterino,1987), 100 WPM (DiVesta & Gray, 1972), 100 WPM(Risch & Kiewra, 1990), 108 WPM (Suritsky & Hughes,1994), 109 WPM (Boyle, 2009), 110 WPM (Boyle &Weishaar, 2001), 120 & 122 WPM (Titsworth,, 2004),and 133 WPM (Ward-Lonergan et al., 1998, 1999).

The videotaped lectures (i.e., training and testing)simulated a typical science lecture in that they wereauditory in nature, with only the title of the lecturewritten on the board. Each lecture was read from ascript that contained both CLP and noncued lecturepoints (NCLP). Each CLP used one of two types of cues:emphasis cue or organizational cue (Hughes &Suritsky, 1994; Scerbo, Warm, Dember, & Grasha, 1992;Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). The first type of cue, anemphasis cue (e.g., "It is important to remember ..."),preceded an important lecture point and served to alertstudents to this information. The second type of cue, anorganizational cue (e.g., "Craftsmen created three typesof objects using gold alloys."), served as a frameworkupon which students organize lecture details.

Of particular interest was how many CLP and totallecture points (TLP) (CLP plus NCLP = TLP) studentswould recorddn their notes, during the testing session ofthe "Sican Metal Worker" lecture. This lecture con-tained 17 CLP plus 43 NCLP, totaling 60 TLP. Titsworthand Kiewra (2004) pointed out that lecture cues servethree key purposes: stimulating student interest, signal-ing the importance of lecture content, and signaling theorganization of subsequent lecture ideas. Perhaps mostimportant, studies have shown that when cues are usedin lectures, NLD students increase their note-takingand subsequent achievement (Maddox & Hoole, 1975;Scerbo et al., 1997; Titsworth, 2001a, 2001b, 2004;Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). Hence, while it is importantto examine how many TLP students record in theirnotes during the lecture, it is also critical to examinehow inany CLP they record.Dependent Variables

Eour dependent variables were used to assess the effec-tiveness of strategic note-taking: an immediate freerecall (IFR) measure, a long-term free recall (LFR) meas-ure, a test that resulted in a test score (TS), and students'notes. Similar measures have been used to assessstudents' productivity and performance from lectures(Kiewra et al., 1995; O'Donnell & Dansereau, 1993;Rickards, Fajen, Sullivan, & Gillespie, 1997; Risch &Kiewra, 1990) and will help demonstrate the effective-ness of CLP and TLP recorded and recalled.

The dependent variables were analyzed in severalways: CLP, NCLP, TLP, and total words (TW) across

riotes and recall measures, as well as test score (TS).Students' notes and recall measures were examined forCLP and NCLP based upon how rpany individual lec-ture points (LP) were present in t:he notes. CLP andNCLP were added together to get TLP. A lecture pointfound in notes was defined as an idea or a block ofinformation from the lecture, with a short clause orphrase accepted as the minimum to be counted as a lec-ture point. Students' LP were compared to the scriptfrom the lecture, and one. point" was awarded for eachaccurate lecture point. A similar criterion has been usedin past note-taking studies that examined CLP andNCLP in students' notes (Hughes & Suritsky, 1994;Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). In this study students' notesand recall rneasures were first assessed for CLP and thenassessed a second time for NCLP. Assessing notesaccording to LP (or idea units) is a common procedurethat has been used in previous research (Brown, 2005;Fisher & Harris, 1973; Hughes & Suritsky, 1994; Kiewraet al., 1995; O'Donnell & Dansereau, 1993; Risch &Kiewra, 1990).

Students' notes and recall measures were also countedto derive the total number of words present. A measureof productivity, the same procedure has been used inpast research (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001; Hartley &Marshall, 1974). Finally, student learning was assessedusing a 15-point multiple-choice test. Students' TS wasused to assess how performance would vary between thetwo groups (i.e., experimental vs. control) after studentsrecorded lecture notes.Interrater Reliability

An independent rater (i.e., a graduate student in edu-cation) who was unaware of which students were in theexperimental or the control group scored all notes,recall measures, and the test. In additiori, one third ofthe students' notes, recall measures, and tests wererescored by a second rater in the same manner as thefirst. Interobserver agreement for each measure wasassessed by dividing agreements by agreements plus dis-agreements.

Students' notes. Immediately after the videotape con-cluded and students finished recording their notes, allstudents' notes were collected prior to administeringthe recall measure or the test. An independent raterscored all IFR measures for CLP, NCLP, TLP and TW.Using the IFR measure, a second rater randomly selectedone third of the IFR measures and scored each in thesame manner as the first rater. Interrater reliability forIFR was calculated to be .96 for CLP, .94 for NCLP, .95for TLP, and .98 for TW.

Immediate free recall. An immediate free recall meas-ure was administered promptly after students viewedthe videotape to assess their knowledge about the lec-

Leaming Disability Quarterly 98

Figure 1. Abbreviated version of strategic note-taking paper.

Strategic Note-Taking Form

Page 1i r ?What is today's topic?

Describe what you know about the topic.

(Fill in this information before the lecture begins)

When the lecture begins, use these pages to take notes.

Today's topic ?

Name 3 to 6 main points with details of today's topic as they are being discussed.

Summary - Quickly describe how the ideas are related.

New Vocabulary or Terms:

Page 2

Name 3 to 6 new main points with details as they are being discussed.

New Vocabulary or Terms:

Summary - Quickly describe how the ideas are related.

PageX

Ñame 3 to 6 new main points with details as they are being discussed.

New Vocabulary or Terms:

Summary - Quickly describe how the ideas are related.

Last PageAt End of Lecture

Write five important lecture points and describe the details of each lecture point:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

From "The effects of a strategic note-taking technique on the comprehension and iong term recall of lecture information for high school studentswith LD," hy j . R. Boyle and M. K. Weishaar, 2001, Leaming Disabilities Research mid Practice, 16(3), p. 136. Used with permission.

Volume 33, Spring 2010 99

Figure 2. Strategie note-taking strategy.

During the Lecture Listen for CUES

C - Cluster - Cluster together 3 to 6 main points of the lecture

U - Use - Use teacher cues to record ideas1. Number Cues -

ex. There are six parts to the cell2. Importance Cues -

ex. This is really important to remember ...

E - Enter - Enter important vocabulary

S - Summarize - Summarize quickly and whenever possible

ture topic. Upon completing the videotape, students'notes were collected, and students were told to use ablank piece of paper provided to write down as manyfacts, vocabulary, and lecture ideas as they could withina 5-minute time period.

An independent rater scored all IFR measures for CLP,NCLP, TLP, and TW. Using the IFR measure, a secondrater randomly selected one third of the IFR measuresand scored each in the same mariner as the first rater.Interrater reliability for IFR was calculated to be .96 forCLP, .96 for NCLP, .96 for TLP, and .99 for TW.

Long-term free recall. Similar to the IFR measures,an LFR measure was administered to assess long-termknowledge about each lecture topic. Two days afterviewing a videotape, students completed an LFR meas-ure. As for the IFR measure, students were instructed touse the blank paper provided to write down as manyfacts, vocabulary, and lecture ideas as they could withina 5-minute period.

Similar to the IFR measure, interrater reliabilitywasalso assessed for the LFR measure. After an inde-pendent rater scored all of the LER measures, one thirdof the randomly selected LFR measures were scored by asecond rater. Interrater reliability for LFR was calculatedto be .98 for CLP, .98 for NCLP, .98 for TLP, and .99 forTW.

Comprehension test. Each student was administereda 15-point multiple-choice test that resulted in each stu-

dent's test score (TS). In order to avoid ceiling effects,the level of difficulty for the comprehension test was sethigh. The test was developed from the content of thelecture, "Sican Metal Workers." The accuracy of the testcontent was confirmed by the second rater when thisrater located and found the content pertaining to all ofthe questions and correct answers (i.e., 100%) in the lec-ture notes from the testing videotape.

Immediately following each IFR measure, studentswere administered the comprehension test. Studentswere not permitted to study for the test, nor were theypermitted to use notes or any other materials. Using ananswer key, an independent rater scored each test, andone third were rescored by a second rater that revealed100% interrater reliability.

Strategic note-taking student questionnaire. Onefinal measure was administered to students in the exper-imental group. Although it is not a dependent variableused to discern differences between the experimentaland control group, it will be discussed in this context.The questionnaire was comprised of six statements witha 4-point Likert-type scale rating from 1 ("strongly dis-agree") to 4 ("strongly agree"). Specific items exploredwhether strategic-noting was helpful at recording betternotes, remembering lecture information, and improv-ing students' science grade. In addition, one statementexplored whether students preferred strategic note-tak-ing over conventional note-taking, and two open-ended

Learning Disability Quarterly 100

questions asked students to identify what they liked anddisliked most about strategic note-taking.Independent Variable

The independent variable was strategic note-taking.(An abbreviated version of the strategic note-takingform is presented in Figure 1.) There were two levels ofthe independent variable. The first level included stu-dents who received the strategic note-taking training,whereas the second included students in the controlgroup. Students in the control group were providedwith lined paper and told to record notes as they typi-cally would in class.

Strategic note-taking strategy (SN strategy). The SNstrategy was developed to assist students as they listento lectures by incorporating steps that help them focusattention on teacher cues and vocabulary in the lecture,as well as steps to help them organize lecture contentsuch as clustering similar lecture ideas and summarizing(i.e., categorizing) clustered lecture points. In the strat-egy, each step prompts the student to perform an actionusing lecture information and the SN paper.

In the first step, the Cluster step, students are to clus-ter lecture information into manageable units of threeto six related ideas and record the chunked ideas on theSN paper. The Use step prompts students to pay atten-tion and listen for teacher cues (i.e., number cues andimportance cues) during the lecture and, when theyhear these cues, record the lecture points that are asso-ciated with them. During training, students weretaught to recognize these two types of cues by identify-ing them in the videotaped training lecture (i.e., a stu-dent who recognized a lecture cue not only identifiedthe content of the lecture point, but also statedwhether it was a number or an importance cue). In thenext step. Enter, students are to listen for vocabularywords and to list any vocabulary words from the lecturein the appropriate area on the SN paper. In theSummarize step, students are to write a word or wordsthat would categorize the three to six lecture pointsthey have already listed (i.e., clustered together) on theSN paper.

Strategic note-taking paper (SN paper). The SNpaper was developed based upon Mayer's SOI Model ofLearning (1996). According to the SOI (i.e., selection,organization, and integration) model (Mayer, 2008),learning occurs through the three processes of (a) selec-tion - students attend to incoming materials to deter-mine what is relevant and what is not; (b) organization- students organize relevant incoming material into acoherent mental representation or build connectionsbetween the selected pieces of information; and (c) inte-gration - students relate relevant incoming materialswith existing knowledge from long-term memory.

Specifically, the first portion of the SN paperrequested students to quickly identify the lecture topicand relate it to their knowledge of it. In doing so, stu-dents are able to draw connections between new andpreviously learned information, making the new infor-mation more "meaningful" and aiding memory of it(Peper & Mayer, 1986). The next part of the SN paperrequested that students cluster together three to sixmain points with details from the lecture as they arebeing discussed. By summarizing (or categorizing) inthe next step, it is believed that this step would aid stu-dents in encoding and storing information inlong-term memory (Kiewra et al,, 1991). If there wereany new vocabulary or terms, students were to listthem in the next part of the SN paper. The steps ofnaming three to six main points, summarizing imme-diately after naming lecture points, and listing newvocabulary or terms, were repeated until the lectureended. The last page, which involved writing five mainpoints and describing each, was intended to help stu-dents identify five important points from the lecture.Overall Procedures

The study was conducted over four sessions. Duringthe first two sessions, experimental group studentswere trained using the first videotaped lecture. In thethird session, experimental and control studentstogether viewed the second videotaped lecture,recorded notes, and completed the IFR and compre-hension measures. The control group was providedwith lined (blank) paper and instructed to use theirconventional note-taking procedures to record notesfrom the videotape. The experimental group was pro-vided with the SN paper and instructed to record notesas they had been trained during the previous two ses-sions.

After the videotape concluded and students finishedrecording notes, all notes were collected and the IFRwas administered, Iinmediately upon completion ofthe 5-minute IFR, students' IFR measures were col-lected, and the test was administered. In the fourth ses-sion (two days later), experimental and controlstudents together completed the LFR measure. In addi-tion, students in the experimental group were asked tocomplete the SN student questionnaire.Strategic Note-Taking Training

During the first 50-minute training session, the pri-mary investigator followed a scripted lesson andtrained students on how to use the SN strategy for theSN form. Throughout the training, the investigator pro-vided a brief description of strategic note-taking, mod-eled the technique, and guided students throughpractice portions of the videotaped lecture while pro-viding appropriate feedback.

Volume 33, Spring 2010 101

At the start of the initial training session, the investi-gator explained to students that strategic note-takingwas a strategy that they would use in conjunction withthe SN paper to help them record better notes. Theinvestigator asked students to describe the kinds ofproblems they encountered when recording notes dur-ing class lectures. Student responses included problemswith (a) writing and listening to the teacher at the sametime, (b) trying to determine which lecture points wereimportant to write down, (c) writing fast enough tokeep up with the lecture, and (d) paying attention in along class.

Next, the investigator told students he had a new wayto take notes and that students who used this techniquehad improved the quality and quantity of their notes.Students were then given a page with the SN strategysteps listed (see Figure 2). The investigator asked themto look at and read along as he reviewed the strategysteps. Initially, the investigator spent a few minutesreviewing what is meant by the word cues. Studentsgave responses that related to a musical cue used inband and music classes, arid they also spoke about a cueball in billiards. The investigator used this informationto relate it to teacher cues that are used in lectures,telling students that just as a musical cue tells the bandwhen to begin playing, teacher cues tell students thatsomething important is coming up; in this case, impor-tant lecture information.

The investigator then reviewed all of the letters(CUES) to show students that each letter pronipts themto take some action when recording notes. In theCluster step, students were told to listen for and recordthree to six related lecture points. Next, students weretold that there are two kinds of cues that teachers use:number cues and importance cues. Students were givensome examples (e.g., "there are three kinds of toads...")of a number cue and asked what they need to do whenthey hear a number cue. Students, responded that theyhave to write the information in their notes and includethe number of lecture points that match the numbercue (i.e., three). Students were then told that teachersuse importance cues when they are about to say some-thing important and that they should always record theimportant information in their notes. Again, the inves-tigator gave examples (e.g., "this is important to know...") and asked students to tell him importance cues thatteachers in their classes use with them.

Next, the investigator discussed the Enter step andtold students to enter on the SN paper any importantvocabulary words that they hear during the lecture.Finally, the investigator discussed how students shouldquickly summarize three to six lecture points in theappropriate section of their notes.

The investigator then handed out the SN paper and

reviewed it with students. During this portion of thetraining, the investigator pointed out to students how,once they begin using strategic note-taking with lec-tures, they should immediately complete the top por-tion of the page that asks them to describe what theyknow about the lecture topic. From there, the investiga-tor reviewed the other section of the SN paper anddescribed how it related to the SN strategy. In particular,he explained that naming and recording three to sixmain lecture points relates to the Cluster step of thestrategy and that these three to six points could includecued lecture points (from the Use step) or other lecturepoints (i.e., noncued lecture points).

In the next portion of the SN paper, the investigatorshowed students where to Enter vocabulary words orterms and where on the paper students should quicklySummarize or categorize the lecture points in that por-tion of their notes.

At this point, students were verbally quizzed for 10minutes on the steps of the SN strategy and asked whataction to take in each step. Students were informed thatafter the day's session, they would be taking the strategysheet home to study it. Next, the investigator told stu-dents that he would show them how to use strategicnote-taking to record notes from a videotaped lecture(i.e.. Frogs and Toads). The investigator turned on thevideotape and began modeling the use of strategic note-

• taking (i.e., both the strategy and the paper) by writingnotes on the SN paper and by using a "think aloud"technique to verbally convey his thoughts to students.For example, when a cued lecture point was given inthe videotaped lecture, the investigator paused andremarked that it was a cue to write down importantinformation. After about 5 minutes and at the end ofthe flrst portion of the lecture, the investigator stoppedthe tape and explained to students what he had writtenon the SN paper. He pointed out how he recorded wordsand phrases and how he did not record the lecture ver-batim. He described how he clustered three to six ideas,listened for lecture cues, wrote down important vocab-ulary, and summarized clustered lecture points. He alsonoted that he was not concerned about spelling orgrammatical errors, as long as the notes were writtenlegibly.

After they had had an opportunity to ask questions,students were instructed to flll in the form as the nextsection of the videotaped lecture was played. Qnce stu-dents completed this next section, the videotape wasstopped, questions were solicited, and student responsesfrom their written notes were discussed. During eachdiscussion, each strategy step was mentioned, as werethe different types of lecture cues (i.e., number cues orimportance cues) used in the videotape. This procedurewas repeated until the end of the videotaped lecture.

Learning Disability Quarterly 102

During the second 50-minute training session, exper-imental students used the same videotape, but a new SNpaper. The difference between this session and the pre-vious training session was that the videotape was notstopped until the end of the lecture. Prior to this ses-sion, the investigator spent 10 minutes reviewing theSN strategy and SN form. This included asking studentsto recall from memory what to do in each strategy step.The investigator went around the room and asked eachstudent to recall from memory the different strategysteps until all students could tell what to do in eachstep. Next, the investigator told students to get ready totake notes by completing the top section of the SNpaper that asked students to write down what theyknew about the videotaped lecture topic Frogs andToads.

After studerits completed this portion of the SN paper,the videotape was started. As it was playing, the investi-gator walked around the room and encouraged slowerstudents to continue recording notes. The purpose ofthis training session was to acclimate students with thespeed of the lecture and improve their fluency at usingstrategic note-taking. At the end of the lecture, theinvestigator reviewed students' notes with them foraccuracy and completeness and verbally reinforced cor-rect responses pertaining to the lecture points theyrecorded.

RESULTSData Analysis

Because more than one dependent variable was usedin conjunction with the independent variable, a multi-variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was the pre-ferred data analysis technique (Stevens, 2002) to answerthe research questions. SPSS for Windows was used forthe analyses, and the criterion alpha level used for sta-tistical significance was .05. For the MANOVA, the effectsize is reported as partial eta squared (rip̂ ) and is used asan estimate of variance in the dependent variables(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The effect size may beinterpreted according to the following guidelines pro-vided by Cohen (1988): rip̂ = .010 is small, rip̂ = .059 ismedium, and T|p̂ = .138 is large.

The first research question sought to answer the ques-tion whether students who used strategic note-takingwould record more notes overall. The multivariate effectfor strategic note-taking versus conventional note-tak-ing on TLP and TW in students' notes was significant,with Wilks' A = .58, F = 13.33 (2, 37), p < .01, rip2 = .42.Subsequent univariate tests indicated that strategicnote-taking had a significant effect on both TLP, F =10.31 (1, 38), p < .01, Tip2 = .22, and TW, F = 24.22 (1,38), p < .01, rip2 = .39. Students in the experimentalgroup (see Table 2) who used strategic note-taking

Table 2Number of Lecture Points and

Dependent Variables

NotesTLPTW

IFRTLPTW

• • L F RTLPTW

Words in Notes and Recall

Experimental Students{N = 20)

M SD

16.50108.60

6.3540.00

4.4528.40

(10.02)(51.36)

(3.38)(23.18)

(2.48)(20.16)

Measures

Control(N

M

8.7540.95

3.8517.60

2.458.75

Students= 20)

SD

(4.01) .(33.77)

(2.13)(12.35)

(2.21)(8.77) •

Volume 33, Spring 2010 103

Table 3Number of Lecture Points and

Dependent Variables

Notes CLP

IFR CLP

LFR CLP

Words in Notes and Recall

Experimental Students(iV=20)

M SD

7.95 (4.32)

3.10 (2.00)

2.10 (1.48)

Measures

Control(N =

M

4.55

1.65

.95

Students= 20)

SD

(1.76)

(1.23)

(1.05)

recorded more TLP in their notes (16.50) than studentsin the control group who did conventional note-taking(8.75). In addition, experimental students recordedmore TW in their notes (108.60) than did control stu-dents (40.95).

The second question sought to answer whether stu-dents who used strategic note-taking would performbetter than the control group on recall measures andthe test. The multivariate effect for strategic note-takingversus conventional note-taking on TLP on IFR and LFR;TW on IFR, and LFR; and TS was significant, with Wilks'A = .63, F = 3.94 (5, 34), p < .05, iip^ = .37. Subsequentunivariate tests indicated that strategic note-taking hada significant effect on TLP for the IFR, F = 7.84 (1, 38), p< .05, Tip2 = .17; TLP for the LFR, F = 7.24 (1, 38), p < .05,Tlp2 = .16; TW for the IFR, F = 14.55 (1, 38), p < .05, i]/= .28; TW for the LFR = 15.98 (1, 38), p < .05, Tip2 = .30;and TS, F = 4.85 (1, 38), p < .05, Tip̂ = .32.

In terms of achievement, students in the strategicnote-taking group wrote more lecture points (see Table

, 2) on both the-IFR and LFR (6.35 and 4.45, respectively)than students who used conventional note-taking (3.85and 2.45, respectively). They also wrote more words onboth the IFR and LFR (40.00 and 28.40, respectively)than the control group (17.60 and 8.75, respectively);and they scored slightly higher on the test (9.90) thanthe control group (8.45).

The third and fourth questions sought to answerwhether students who used strategic note-taking wouldrecord more CLP in notes and, subsequently, recallmore CLP than the control group on recall measures.The multivariate effect for strategic note-taking versus

conventional note-taking for CLP in notes and CLP onIFR and LFR was significant, with Wilks' A = .74, f = 4.25(3, 36), p < .05, Tip2 = .26. Subsequent univariate testsindicated that strategic note-taking had significanteffects on CLP for notes, F = 10.61 (1, 38), p < .05, Tip2 =.22; CLP for IFR, F = 7.66 (1, 38), p < .05, Tip2 = .17; andCLP for LFR, F = 8.01 (1, 38), p < .05, rip2 = .17.

In terms of CLP (see Table 3), students with LD in thestrategic note-taking group wrote more CLP in notes(i.e., experimental group mean of 7.95 versus controlgroup of 4.55). Moreover, more of these CLP showed upin both IFR and LFR measures (3.10 and 2.10, respec-tively) when compared to students with LD who usedconventional note-taking (1.65 and .95, respectively).In terms of percentage of notes, students who usedstrategic note-taking recorded 47% of the total possibleCLP from the lecture compared to 27% for students whoused conventional note-taking. It appears that thislarger percentage of recorded CLP aided students whenthey recalled LPs- on short-term and long-term meas-ures.

Finally, the results from the Strategic Note-takingStudent Questionnaire indicated that students' ratingswere in the upper range for all of the items (range for allitems = 3.13 to 3.56). Items receiving the highest ratingswere as follows: (a) strategic note-taking can help meimprove my science grade, (b) strategic note-takinghelps me to record better notes, and (c) I liked strategicnote-taking better than my previous note-taking.Students' written comments about what they likedabout strategic note-taking included the following: TheSN strategy helped them record more organized notes

Learning Disability Quarterly 104

and helped them remember information better.Students' dislikes included the following: The lecturewas long, students had to write quickly, it took moretime to write the information in the correct part of theSN paper, and summarizing made them miss certain lec-ture points.

DISCUSSIONAs shown above, students who used strategic note-

taking recorded more notes and performed better onrecall and comprehension measures. These findingsillustrate several important points of this study.

First, as illustrated in Table 2, students in the SNgroup recorded more lecture points; on average, almosttwice as many as students who used conventional note-taking. Second, students in the SN group also recordedmore words in their notes; on average, more than twiceas many as students in the control group. These find-ings support and extend previous research that taughthigh-school students with disabilities to use SN torecord lecture notes (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001). Further,in terms of percentage of overall notes recorded, whencompared to the lecturer's script, which contained 60TLP, students in the SN group recorded 27.5% of thetotal possible LP, compared to students in the controlgroup, who only recorded 14.6% of overall LP. Whilethe middle-school students with LD in the current studywere not as prolific as older students (i.e., studies thatexamined notes of college students) with NLD, the totalpercentage of lecture points recorded by middle-schoolstudents with LD (i.e., who used SN) in this studymatched previous research conducted among middle-school students with NLD. For example, Kiewra andothers have reported that college students with NLDrecorded, on average, 35% of the total lecture points(Kiewra, DuBois, Christensen, Kim, & Lindberg, 1989),32% (Kiewra et al., ,1991), and 25% (O'Donnell &Dansereau, 1993). More important, among middle-school students with NLD, studies report that they typ-ically record only 27% of lecture ideas (Risch & Kiewra,1990).

Third, students who used SN performed better thanstudents in the control group on three measures ofachievement: IFR, LFR, and TS. In terms of the recallmeasures, on both IFR and LFR, students who usedstrategic note-taking recalled, on average, more lecturepoints regardless of the immediacy or duration of therecall measure. On these recall measures, again studentsin the SN recalled, on average, more than twice as manywords as students in the control group, resulting inmore detailed responses. Similarly, although differencesin scores were not as profound, students who used SNperformed better than students in the control group onthe 15-point multiple-choice test. Again, the results sup-

port similar studies, which found that middle-schoolstudents (i.e., with NLD) who recorded notes outper-formed students who did not record notes on measuresof achievement (Laidlaw et al., 1993; Risch & Kiewra,1990), while also extending them by examining theeffects among students with LD.

Fourth, of importance was whether students whoused SN would record more CLP. As shown; students inthe SN group recorded more CLP and also recalled moreCLP on recall measures (i.e., IFR and LFR). This repre-sents an important finding because CLP have beenshown to boost both note-taking and achievement

. (Titsworth, 2001a, 2001b; Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004).Not only does an instructor's lecture cues help studentsdiscern important from less important lecture content(Titsworth, 2004), CLP also represent key lecture pointsthat most teachers expect to see in their students' notes.Moreover, given that teachers use CLP to signal impor-tant lecture content (Maddox & Hoole, 1975; Scerbo etal., 1997) and use the contents of lectures for develop-ing tests and quizzes (Putnam et al., 1993), it wouldseem likely that CLP often form the basis of many testquestions. Hence, while it is important for students torecord notes in class, it seems especially crucial to recordCLP. Again, the findings from the current study extendthe research base (Titsworth, 2004; Titsworth & Kiewra,2004), especially in terms of examining CLP recorded bymiddle-school students with disabilities in their notesahd the resulting increases in achievement when com-pared to conventional note-takers.

Students who were taught SN performed better thanstudents in the control group on measures of achieve-ment. Other studies typically allow students to studytheir notes before taking a test to enhance long-termmemory of lecture notes and to erase from workingmemory the recently presented lecture content(Lazarus, 1991; Titsworth, 2001a, 2001b, 2004;Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). Without the aid of studying,students in the SN group in the current study still scoredan average of 66% (i.e., 9.9 out of 15). Moreover, besidesserving as a learning aid, notes serve as a permanentrecord of the lecture from which students can studyfrom to prepare for tests. In other words, students withcomplete or detailed notes have an advantage over stu-dents who either have partial or fewer notes.

In terms of note-taking and current theory on work-ing memory (Baddeley, 2003; Baddely & Hitch, 1974;Baddeley, Hitch, & Allen, 2009), note-taking representsa complex and cognitively demanding task (Kobayashi,2005; Peverly, 2006; Peverly et al., 2007). Specifically,note-taking involves listening to the lecture and hold-ing the information in working memory (WM) whiledeciding which lecture points are worth recording,selecting or creating lecture points to record from WM,

Volume 33, Spring 2010 IOS

and writing them quickly while simultaneously listen-ing to new lecture content (Peverly, 2006). If all of thisdoes not occur rather quickly and efficiently, informa-tion in WM will be lost.

In summary, to juggle all this, students must not onlyhave good listening skills, but must be able to use selec-tive attention to choose important points from the lec-ture, write the inforrnation in notes so that it isunderstandable (i.e., useful to the note-taker), and writequickly enough to be able to keep up with the lecturer.

The most successful note-takers are fluent writers,allowing more capacity in WM for higher-level process-ing of lecture information (Peverly, 2006), who havesufñcient cognitive resources and abilities (i.e., strate-gies for listening, dictation, and writing) to processincoming lecture information (Altemeier, Jones, Abbott,& Berninger, 2006). Moreover, effective note-takers caneasily switch attention back and forth from listening tothe speaker to writing down notes, they can inhibitirrelevant lecture information (i.e., decide which lecturepoints are relevant to record and which are irrelevant),and they can effectively access long-term memory(LTM) to move ideas from LTM to WM as they relateto incoming lecture points (Altemeier et al,, 2006;Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008;Berninger, Raskind, Richards, Abbott, & Stock, 2008;Swanson, Zheng, & Jerman, 2009).

Unfortunately, for students with LD, many compo-nents of the note-taking process present difñculties. Inmany cases, excessive WM load has been implicated asthe main cause of students' inability to effectivelyrecord notes from lectures (Gathercole, Lamont, &Alloway, 2006; Peverly, 2006), Reducing the load onworking memory through the use of supports, such asstrategic note-taking and guided notes, can aid studentlearning (Gathercole et al., 2007). Other supports, suchas employing teacher cues (verbal or written) or inter-jecting pauses in the lecture also help reduce the loadon WM. The use of these types of supports reduces loadon WM, particularly verbal WM, and help to increaseattention toward the important aspects of the lecture(Altemeier et al., 2006; Berninger et al., 2008).

When interpreting the results of the current study,the following limitations should be kept in mind. First,the study used only one videotaped lecture to deter-mine the effectiveness of SN on student note-taking andlearning compared to students who used conventionalnote-taking. Future studies should examine multiplelectures on several different science topics to determineif SN can generalize to other lectures.

Second, the study used a videotaped lecture asopposed to live lectures. While the videotaped lectureallowed controlling extraneous variables, it was still pre-sented as a contrived lecture that did not allow for inter-

actions as typically occur in middle-school science class-rooms. Furthermore, since teachers present lectures indifferent delivery formats, it is possible that the video-taped lecture was less "teacher-friendly" than most lec-tures presented in middle-school science classrooms.

Third, students were informed that neither their notesnor the test would be used toward their grades. It is pos-sible that students were not motivated to record "gener-ative" notes that would have aided their performancewhen recording notes and on subsequent tests (Slotte &Lonka, 2001).

Future research should explore other aspects of note-taking for middle-school students with LD, First,research is needed that examines the effects of note-tak-ing on delayed recall tests and other comprehensiontests. Since typical classrooms tests occur several days orweeks after the lecture, future research should examinestudent performance on delayed tests to see what effectsa note-taking technique over a longer period of timewould have on performance. Second, future researchshould examine how adding a review session after note-taking could aid student learning. Using review periodsof various lengths (e.g., 5 minutes vs. 15 minutes) mightshow whether reviewing notes for a certain length oftime maximizes test performance, as well as long-termrecall. Finally, future research should examine theeffects of various types of lecture cues (i.e., written ver-sus verbal) to determine which type is the most effectivefor the note-taking of students with LD.

Implications for PracticeWhen teaching students note-taking skills and strate-

gies, teachers should take into account several variablesduring training. First, teachers should use well-knownlecture content so that students can focus on accuratelyusing the skills and strategies. Teachers should thenmonitor students' use of the different strategy steps toensure proper use and provide feedback to studentsthroughout the various parts of the training. Second,since cued lecture points are important for students torecord in their notes, teachers should be familiar withthe different types of lecture cues used in students'classes. These types should be taught to students so thatthey can begin to recognize these cues and use them asthey record notes. Third, since students with disabilitiesmight have difficulty keeping up with the lecture,teachers should teach them how to abbreviate words(e.g., write only the flrst four letters of a long word), aswell as common abbreviations (e.g., & for and, I forwith, be for because), as one way to help students savetime when writing. Finally, once students become com-fortable recording "practice" lecture notes, teachersshould consider presenting lecture content at a fasterpace to replicate authentic classroom lectures.

Learning Disability Quarterly 106

REFERENCESAltemeier, L., Jones, J., Abbott, R. D., & Beminger, V. W. (2006).

Executive functions in becoming writing-readers and reading-writers: Note-taking and report writing in third and fifthgraders. Developmental Neiiropsychology, 29, 161-173.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and lookingforward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829-839.

Baddeley, A.,' & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower(Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47-90). NewYork: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A., Hitch, G., & Allen, R. (2009). Working memory andbinding in sentence recall, journal of Memory and language, 61,438-456.

Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W.(2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated, ¡oumal of School Psychology, 46,1-21.

Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P.(2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understandingdevelopmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture:Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 33, 707-744.

Boyle, J. R. (2009). Note-taking skills of middle-school students withand without learning disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publi-cation.

Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of a strategic note-taking technique on the comprehension and long term recall oflecture information for high school students with LD. LDResearch and Practice, J(S(3), 125-133.

Bretzing, B. H., Kulhavy, R. W., & Caterino, L. C. (1987).Notetaking by junior high students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 80, 359-362.

Brown, R. (2005). Seventh-graders' self-regulatory note-takingfrom text: Perceptions, preferences, and practices. ReadingResearch and Instruction, 44, 1-26.

Cawley, J. F., Hayden, S., Cade, E., & Baker-Krooczynski, S. (2002).Including students with disabilities into the general educationscience classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423-435.

Cawley, J., Kahn, H., & Tedesco, A. (1989). Vocational educationand students with learning disabilities. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 22, 630-634.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework.New York: Oxford University Press.

Crawford, D. B., & Carnine, D. (2000). Comparing the effects oftextbooks in eighth-grade U.S. history: Does conceptual organi-zation of text help? Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 387-422.

Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Bui, Y., & Vernon, S. (2006). Highschools and adolescents with disabilities: Challenges at everyturn..In D. D. Deshler &J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adoles-cents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum(pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Lenz, B., Bulgren, J., Hock, M., Knight,J., & Ehren, B. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by sec-ondary students with learning disabilities. Learning DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 16, 96-108.

DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1973). Listening and note-taking: II.Immediate and delayed recall as a function of variations in the-matic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-reviewintervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278-287.

Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note-taking and reviewon recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 321-325.

Fulp, S. L. (2002). 2000 National survey of science and mathematicseducation: Status of elementary science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC:Horizon Research.

Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Naquin, G. M.,& Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: Thereliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measuresfor curriculum-based measurement in writing. School PsychologyReview, 31, 477-497.

Gathercole, S. E., Durling, E., Evans, M., Jeffcock, S., & Stone, S.(2007). Working memory deficits in laboratory analogues ofactivities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1019-1037.

Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Workingmemory in the classroom. In S. Pickering & G. Phye (Eds.),Working memory and education (pp. 219-240). New York:Academic Press.

Gersten, R., Baker, S., Smith-Johnson, J., Dimino, J., & Petersen, A.(2006). Eyes on the prize: Teaching complex historical contentto middle-school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,72, 264-280.

Harniss, M., Dickson, S., Kinder, D., & Hollenbeck, K. (2001).Textual problems and instructional solutions: Strategies forenhancing learning from published history textbooks. Reading& Writing Ciuarterly, 17, 127-150.

Hartley, J., & Marshall, S. (1974). On notes and note-taking.Universities Quarterly, 28, 225-235.

Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation:Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Huber, R. A., & Moore, G. J. (2002). High stakes testing and sciencelearning assessment. Science Edi/cfltor, 11, 18-23.

Hudson, S. B., McMahon, K. C., & Overstreet, G. M. (2002). The2000 national survey of science and mathematics education:Compendium of tables. Chapel Hill, NG: Horizon Research.

Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1994). Note-taking skills of uni-versity students with and without learning disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 27, 20-24.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997,Public Law No. IOS-7 (1997). Retrieved December 14, 2009,from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/the_law.html.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,Public Law No. 108-446 (2004). Retrieved December 14, 2009,from http://idea.ed.gov.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. FortWorth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Ghristian, D., McShane, A.,Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functionsand techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.

Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Ghristensen, M.(1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique onrecall and relational performance. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 20, 172-187.

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Ghristensen, M., Kim, S., & Lindberg,N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking func-tions in learning from lecture and from text. InstructionalSciences, 18, 217-232.

Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-tak-ing? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 30, 242-262.

Knowlton, E. K. (1983). Secondary teachers' expectations of learn-ing disabled students (Research Report No. 75). Lawrence:University of Kansas, Institute for Research in LearningDisabilities.

Volume 33, Spring 2010 107

Laidlaw, E. N., Skok, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). The effectsof notetaking and self-questioning on quiz performance. ScienceEducation, 77, 75-82.

Lazarus, B. D. (1991). Guided notes, review, and achievement ofsecondary students with learning disabilities in mainstreamcontent courses. Education and Treatment of Children, 14,112-127.

Lazarus, B. D. (1993). Guided notes: effects with secondary andpost-secondary students with mild disabilities. Education andTreatment of Children, 16, 272-289.

Lee, P., Lan, W., Hamman, D., & Hendricks, B. (2008). The effectsof teaching notetaking strategies on elementary students'science learning. Instructional Science, 36, 191-201.

Maddox, H., & Hoole, E. (1975). Performance decrement in thelectuK. Educational Review, 1, 17-30.

Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approachto assessing acadernic performance: What it is and why do it.In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessingspecial children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out ofexpository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitiveprocesses in knowledge construction. Educational PsychologyReview, 8, 357-371.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction.American Psychologist, 63, 760-769.

Mclntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O.(1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in gen-eral education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261.

O'Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. F. (1993). Learning from lectures:Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education,61, 116-125.

Patterson, K. (2005). Increasing positive outcomes for AfricanAmerican males in special education with the use of guidednotes. The Journal of Negro Education, 74, 311-320.

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 34-38.

Peverly, S. T. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed inadult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197-216.

Peverly, S., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C, Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M.,& Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in note-taking? Journalof Educational Psychology, 99, 167-180.

Putnam, M. L., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. S. (1993). Theinvestigation of setting demands: A missing link in learningstrategy instruction. In L. S. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessmentand instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 325-354).Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Rickards, J., Fajen, B., Sullivan, J., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, .notetaking, and field Independence-dependence in text com-prehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508-517.

Risch, N., & Kiewra, K. (1990). Content and form variations innote taking: Effects among junior high students. Journal ofEducational Research, 83, 355-357.

Scerbo, M. W., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Grasha, A. F. (1992).The role of time and cuing in a college lecture. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 17, 312-328.

Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1984). Setting demand variables: Amajor factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topicsin Language Disorders, 4, 22-40.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for main-streamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives.Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18-27.

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional devel-opment in accommodating students with disabilities: Lessonslearned. Remedial & Special Education, 16, 344-353.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L.,& Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: Whatcan students with learning disabilities expect? ExceptionalChildren, 61, 335-352.

Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. (in press). Dospecial education interventions improve learning of secondarycontent? Remedial and Special Education.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitativeresearch. Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.

Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & Okolo, C. (2008). Science and socialstudies for students with disabilities. Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 41, 1-25.

Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (2001). Notetaking and essay writing. In G.Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka(Volume Eds.), Studies in writing, volume 7, Writing as a learningtool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 131-143). Amsterdam:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Snyder, M., & Bambara, L (1997). Teaching secondary studentswith learning disabilities to self-manage classroom survivalskills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 534-543.

Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S., & Bovaird, J. (2007).Glassroom variables and access to the general education cur-riculum for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 74, 101-120.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stringfellow, J. L., & Miller, S. P. (2005). Enhancing student per-formance in secondary classrooms while providing access to thegeneral education curriculum using lecture formats. TEACHINGExceptional Children Plus, 1, 2-16.

Suritsky, S. K. (1992). Notetaking approaches and specific areasof difficulty reported by university students with learning dis-abilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10(1),3-10.

Suritsky, S. K., & Hughes, G. A. (1996). Notetaking strategy instruc-tion. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teachingadolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 267-312).Denver, GO: Love Publishing Company.

Swanson, H., Zheng, X., & Jerman, O. (2009). Working memory,short-term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 260-287.

Sweeney, W. J., Ehrhardt, A. M., Gardner, R., Jones, L, Greenfield,R., & Fribley, S. (1999). Using guided notes with academically at-risk high school students during a remedial summer social stud-ies class. Psychology in the Schools 36(4), 305-315.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics,fourth edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Titsworth, B. S. (2001a). Immediate and delayed effects of interestcues and engagement cues on students' affective learning.Communication Studies, 52, 169-179

Titsworth, B. S. (2001b). The effects of teacher immediacy, use oforganizational cues, and students' notetaking on student learn-ing. Communication Education, S3, 305-320.

Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students' note-taking: The effects ofteacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, SO,283-297.

Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Organizational lecture cuesand student notetaking as facilitators of student learning.Contemporary £í/ucfltío«fl/Psyc^o/o^y, 29, 447-461.

Learning Disability Quarterly 108

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Kouzekanani, K. (1993). What do stu-dents with learning disabilities think when their general educa-tion teachers make adaptations? Journal of Learning Disabilities,26, 545-555.

Vogler, K. (2006). Impact of a high school graduation examinationon Tennessee science teachers' instructional practices. AmericanSecondary Education, 35, 35-57.

Ward-Lonergan, J. M., Lilies, B. Z., & Anderson, A. M. (1998).Listening comprehension and recall abilities in adolescents withlanguage learning disabilities and without disabilities for socialstudies lectures. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 1-32.

Ward-Lonergan, J. M., Lilies, B. Z., & Anderson, A. M. (1999).Verbal' retelling abilities in adolescents with language learningdisabilities and without disabilities for social studies lectures.Journal of learning Disabilities, 32, 213-223.

Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,third edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II. NewYork: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fourthedition: American Manual. San Antonio, TX: PsychologicalCorporation.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). WJ-III Testsof Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing

Please address correspondence about this article to: Joseph R.Boyle, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, GraduateSchool of Education, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ08901-1183; e-mail: [email protected]

Volume 33, Spring 2010 109

Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.