Abstract
- Blanchard, J. S. (1985). What to tell students about underlining . . . and why. Journal of Reading, 29, 199–203.
- Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.
- Divesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1973). Listening and note taking II. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287.
- Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,3–24.
- Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493.
- Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H., & McCrudden, M. A. (2005). Exploring differences in students’ copy and paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology,97, 103–116.
- Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H., McCrudden, M. A., & Kauffman, D. F. (2003). InfoGather: Six experiments toward the development of an online, data-gathering tool. In R. Bruning, C. A. Horn, & L. M. Pytlik-Zillig (Eds.), Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 57–77). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
- Igo, L. B., Bruning, R. H., Riccomini, P. J., & Pope, G. (2006). How should middle school students with LD approach online note taking? A mixed-methods study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29,89–100.
- Johnson, L. L. (1988). Effects of underlining textbook sentences on passage and sentence recall. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 18–32.
- Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 129–131.
- Loranger, A. L. (1994). The study strategies of successful and unsuccessful high school students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26,347–361.
- Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,537–549.
- Mayer, R. R. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. 2.Teaching for meaningful learning. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
- McAndrew, D. A. (1983). Underlining and note-taking: Some suggestions from research. Journal of Reading, 27, 103–108.
- Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (Eds.). (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance: Cognitive strategy training series (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
- Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422–438.
- Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. A. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 24–32.
- Slotte,V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1–20.
- Volume 18
- Issue 4
- Publication Date: Summer 2007
- Page Number(s): 512-529
- DOI: 10.4219/jaa-2007-558
How Do High-Achieving Students Approach Web-Based, Copy and Paste note Taking? Selective Pasting and Related Learning Outcomes
L. Brent Igo and Kenneth A. Kiewra
Previous research has indicated that most students will copy and paste notes from Internet sources in a mindless way. They typically paste large sections of text into their notes and then later can recall little of what they have noted. However, a minority of students seem to use copy and paste more strategically. They are more selective in their pasting decisions, paste smaller amounts of text, and later are able to recall more of the ideas in their notes. Still other research has demonstrated that students can be prompted to engage in more selective pasting (and subsequently learn more text ideas) by supplying them with a note-taking framework that restricts the amount of text that may be pasted at any given time. Presumably, restricting students’ pasting forces them to make more difficult decisions about which ideas should be pasted and therefore deepens students’ text processing. But the extant research has not specifically addressed high-achieving students. Might high-achieving students approach copy and paste note taking in a different way than other students? The present study investigates two differing copy and paste conditions on high-achieving college students’ (Experiment 1) and high-achieving high-school students’ (Experiment 2) learning from Web-based text. Results were consistent across the Experiments 1 and 2, where students learned about the same amount of ideas through the note-taking process, irrespective of experimental condition. These results were inconsistent with the previous research, but an explanation was found in a follow-up analysis of students’ notes, which indicated that the high-achieving students approached copy and paste note taking in a more strategic way than did students in the previous research. The relationship between text-pasting selectivity and learning is discussed and offered as advice for other students.
Cart Summary
You have 3 item(s) in your cart.
Last item you added is
Differences Between General and Talented Students’ Perceptions of Their Career and Technical Education Experiences Compared to Their Traditional High School Experiences.