Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

underline keywords, to create clear and colorful tables and even link relative websites to their notes.

Second, reading and note-taking strategies should be noticed more. Taking notes is the second step of reading. Reading the passage and finding main ideas are the first step that pose challenges to many learners. Since longer and more complicated passages are more common in higher education, learners should learn to filter important information. Moreover, different formats of notes such as drawing mind map, listing bullet points or writing summary should be introduced to students so that they can find the note-taking strategy that suits them most.

6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

While findings and pedagogical implications have been reported, there are some limitations that need to be taken into consideration. Considering the limitations of the present study, suggestions for future research will also be provided below.

First, with 13 participants in each note-taking group, they only formed a small subject pool. This may have caused the insignificancy in the results. With a small subject pool for the present study and also the previous study of Horwitz (2016) (12 participants per condition), the relationship between note-taking modality and reading may still be unclear. Future research with a larger sample is thus suggested to better understand note-taking during reading.

Second, the present study did not allow participants to choose the modality they prefer or they are more used to, which may possibly lead to unfavorable factor in the performance. Kirkland’s (2016) research has investigated whether participants used

their preferred modality or not. While the main effect in the result of Kirkland’s study was not significant, it was done in a lecture setting. Therefore, whether participants using their preferred modality to take notes makes a difference in a reading situation is still unclear.

Third, previous related studies (Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013; Horwitz, 2017;

Kirkland, 2016; Muller and Oppenheimer, 2014) were all done in first language settings, in which participants took notes in their mother tongue. However, the participants in the present research are all English-as-second-language learners.

Participants’ performance of reading comprehension from note-taking under a second-language setting should be further explored by future research.

Moreover, participants’ performance on multiple choice questions may not completely show their understanding of the reading passage. There are chances of guessing the correct answer in multiple choice test. In addition, for complicated articles such as research papers, essay questions may reveal more perspectives of comprehension of the learners. Future research is thus suggested to give

comprehension tests on short-answer or more open-ended questions-types.

Last but not least, the present study only included immediate posttest after reading. The retention effect of note-taking cannot be seen. The current result from Leximancer indicates that the mind-map of laptop notes and longhand notes are different, or in other words, the ‘mindset’ of laptop takers and longhand note-takers may actually vary. However, the shortly-delayed test did not show the

difference in their comprehension of the reading material. Therefore, it would provide a more thorough picture to the issue of comparing longhand and laptop note-taking

when delayed posttests are included in future research. Notes are worth-taking, but whether digital notes are worthy in the long term is still in question.

REFERENCES

Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture:

Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 439-444. doi: 10.1037/h0076613

Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in

Reading, 33(2), 206-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x

Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (p. 175–199).

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York:

Grune & Stratton.

Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181-192. doi:

10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.181

Barnhart, A. S., & Goldinger, S. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 906-923. doi: 10.1037/a0019258

Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A. (2011). Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American Journal of

Psychology, 124(1), 63-73. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0063

Bonifacio, A., Kerin, R., Hartley, S., Rudelius, W., & Clements, C. (2015). Marketing:

The Core (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto: McGraw- Hill Ryerson.

Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note-taking strategies. Journal of research in science teaching, 43(8), 786-818.

doi: 10.1002/tea.20115

Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of

processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145-153. doi:

10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso, 209-233.

Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 105(2), 299-309. doi: 10.1037/a0030367

Conway, M. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (1990). Writing and long-term memory:

Evidence for a “translation” hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 42(3), 513-527. doi:

10.1080/14640749008401235

Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118-1133. doi: 10.1037/a0019902

Corcoran, D. W. J., & Rouse, R. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 526-530. doi: 10.1080/14640747008401930

Corey, S. M. (1935). The efficacy of instruction in note making. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(3), 188-194. doi: 10.1037/h0055288

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684. doi:

10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Crawford, C. C. (1925). Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 12(5), 379-386. doi:

10.1080/00220671.1925.10879612

Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of educational psychology, 63(1), 8. doi: 10.1037/h0032243

Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of educational research, 61(2), 239-264. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002239

Dunkel, P. (1988). The content of L1 and L2 students' lecture notes and its relation to test performance. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 259-281. doi: 10.2307/3586936 Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences,

and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational psychology, 77(5), 522-532.

Ford, B., & Banks, W. P. (1977). Perceptual differences between reading handwritten and typed words. Memory & cognition, 5(6), 630-635. doi:

10.3758/BF03197409

Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 337-347. doi: 10.3102/00346543040003337

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers

& Education, 50(3), 906-914. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006

Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gipson, S. Y. M. T., Kim, J. W., Shin, A. L., Kitts, R., & Maneta, E. (2017). Teaching child and adolescent psychiatry in the twenty-first century: A reflection on the role of technology in education. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric

Clinics, 26(1), 93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2016.07.004

Horwitz, S. M. (2017). Is Note-Taking More Effective with a Keyboard or a Pen?

(Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University of Colorado, Boulder.

Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. (2005). Encoding disruption associated with copy and paste note taking. Technologybased education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together, 107-119.

James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in neuroscience and education, 1(1), 32-42. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001

Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms: A formative

analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1-18.

Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N. M., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015).

Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen-or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in cognitive psychology, 11(4), 136-146. doi: 10.5709/acp-0178-7

Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students' note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary educational psychology, 10(4), 378-386. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(85)90034-7

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A

construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:

10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163

Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294.

Kirkland, K. M. (2016). The Effect of Note Taking Media and Preference on the Cognitive Processes Involved in Learning (Unpublished undergraduate thesis).

University of Colorado, Boulder.

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Mankinen, J. M. (2005). Visual and haptic exploratory procedures in children's judgments about tool function. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(3), 240-249. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.05.002

Kunkel, K. R. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 188-196. doi:

10.1177/0092055X0403200204

Lalchandani, L., & Healy, A. F. (2016). Disentangling the effects in note-taking strategy: Generation and summarization (Unpublished master’s thesis).

University of Colorado, Boulder.

Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00195

Leximancer Pty Ltd. (2018). Leximancer user guide: Release 4.5 Retrieved July 8, 2019, from http://doc.leximancer.com/doc/LeximancerManual.pdf

Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216. doi:

10.1080/07380569.2011.594989

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Lonka, K., & Leskinen, E. (1996). Selecting students for medical school: What predicts success during basic science studies? A cognitive approach. Higher Education, 31(4), 507-527. doi:

10.1007/BF00137129

Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., &

Velay, J. L. (2008). Learning through hand-or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(5), 802-815. doi:

10.1162/jocn.2008.20504

Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M. T., & Velay, J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. doi:

10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019

Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The modern language journal, 75(2), 196-204. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05350.x

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing. Advances in haptics, 385-401.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 33(2), 270-298. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001

Morrow, L. M. (2008). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices.

Guilford Press.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard:

Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159-1168. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581

Nakamura, K., Kuo, W. J., Pegado, F., Cohen, L., Tzeng, O. J., & Dehaene, S. (2012).

Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures during reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20762-20767.

O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G. L. O. R. I. A., Russo, R. P.,

& Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. doi:

10.2307/3586278

Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading

comprehension. System, 29(3), 357-370. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00023-9

Page, B., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., & Sorensen, H. (2018). Parents and children in supermarkets: Incidence and influence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.023

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514-522. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.514

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational psychology, 78(1), 34-38. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. The science of reading: A handbook, 227-247.

Perea, M., Gil-López, C., Beléndez, V., & Carreiras, M. (2016). Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(8), 1631-1647. doi:

10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016

Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x

Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note

taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291-312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086 Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's

academic performance. Brookline Books.

Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233-239. doi: 10.1037/a0017678

Salataci, R. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a foreign language, 14(1), 1-17.

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.

doi: j.compedu.2012.10.003

Skolnik, R., & Puzo, M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2), 1-10.

Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 4(6), 592-604. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592

Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1998.0980

Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009, October). Comparing

memory for handwriting versus typing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 53, No. 22, pp. 1744-1747).

Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal

teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286. doi:

10.1177/154193120905302218

Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor:

interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 62(5), 507-528.

Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11-12). New York: Academic Press.

Van Hove, S., Vanderhoven, E., & Cornillie, F. (2017). The tablet for Second Language Vocabulary Learning: Keyboard, Stylus or Multiple

Choice. Comunicar, 25(50), 53.

Wolf, D. F. (1993). Issues in reading comprehension assessment: Implications for the development of research instruments and classroom tests. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 322-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb02289.x

Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and

constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers &

Education, 51(4), 1766-1783. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006

Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the

hassles?. Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 477-520. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42894041

Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse

processes, 21(3), 289-327. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544960

APPENDIX A: Comprehension Questions

Name: ____________

Reading Comprehension Test

This test is designed to measure your understanding of the research article you just read. There are 20 questions in total. Please choose the item that best answers the question. You will have 30 minutes to complete the test.

( ) 1. Which of the following is the best title for the research article?

(A) Parents and Children in Supermarkets: Incidence and Influence (B) Product Layout and Customer Behavior

( ) 2. Why are the research questions of the present study important?

(A) These questions are important for retailers as they provide suggestions for how the advertisement should be placed in store.

(B) These questions are fundamental for manufacturers to know as they influence a range of decisions such as how stores are stocked and laid out assists shoppers.

(C) These questions are important for parents as they help them decide whether they should bring their kids with them during shopping.

( ) 3. What is not one of the investigations of customer’s’ behavior in the present study?

(A) Navigation patterns of shoppers (B) Average basket size

( ) 4. Under what age are the family members counted as ‘children’ in previous studies and the present research?

(A) 12 (B) 16 (C) 18

( ) 6. Which of the following best describes ‘basket size’ in the present research?

(A) Money spent on the products (B) Numbers of the products

( ) 7. How many stores were under investigation in the present study?

(A) 4 (B) 6 (C) 8

( ) 8. What is not true about the way the researchers randomize the sample customers in the supermarkets?

(A) Every tenth shopper to enter the store was chosen.

(B) People chosen were asked to take a brightly colored sticker with them through the store.

( ) 9. What is not one of the ways used to collect data in the present study?

(A) Exit interviews

(B) Entrance observations (C) Density maps

( ) 10. Why does the author mention that while surveys are popular tools, they can be unsuitable for research into areas where people are asked to recall low-involvement, habitual behavior?

(A) The statement explains why doing surveys is not suitable for the present research.

(B) The statement brings up the issue of having children in presence during doing surveys.

( ) 11. According to the reviewed literature, what has not been found in previous studies?

(A) Nearly two-thirds of parents have reported having problems managing their children in store.

(B) Time spent in store has been found to increase by 10% when children accompany the shopper.

( ) 12. What is not mentioned about the findings of Thomas and Garland’s (1993) previous research?

(A) Shoppers move in recognizable patterns within grocery retail spaces (B) It is the only research that directly compare the spend and duration of

shopping trips with and without children

( ) 13. In the article, there are a lot of comparisons between the present study and Thomas and Garland’s (1993) study. What may be the reason accounting for the different money spent of the accompanied and unaccompanied shoppers in the present research and prior research (Thomas and Garland, 1993)?

(A) The percentage of shoppers with more family members was higher in Thomas’ study.

(B) The population of the city of Thomas’ study was higher than that of the present study.

(C) Thomas and Garland's research removed shoppers who perceived themselves to be conducting a non-regular shop, which the present study did not do.

( ) 14. What is not true about the “butt brush” effect?

(A) Amount of sales may change in areas where shoppers are bumped by other shoppers.

(B) It is related to “crowding” in the store.

( ) 15. Which of the following may be the reason for the finding that the proportion of shoppers who have children is higher in store that in the community?

(A) Shoppers tend to bring their children with them during shopping.

(B) Shoppers with more children need to feed more people, so they shop more often.

( ) 16. What can we imply from the present research’s findings?

(A) The stores should provide less trollies with space for two children to sit side-by-side because they are rarely used.

(B) Seeking to use children’s persuasion power to influence shoppers to purchase more items is an effective strategy when shoppers are in the store.

(C) Children may not have their influence over the specific brand chosen, but may instead have more influence over the number, price, or categories of products purchased

( ) 17. According to the findings of the present research, how can supermarkets improve their shopping environment?

(A) Wider aisles could be added in areas children are likely to be present.

(B) They should increase the numbers of mother-and-children restrooms.

( ) 18. According to the article, what can be implied from the finding that shoppers accompanied by children are more spread out through the store than shoppers without children?

(A) It is less easy to target with in-store promotional activity.

(B) Customers without children may be easily disturbed by kids running around.

( ) 19. According to the findings of the present research, which of the following is the worst strategy if the manufactures want to increase their sales?

(A) Send DMs to their customer’s house.

(B) Investigate which brand is most popular among children.

( ) 20. According to the present study, which of the implications below is wrong?

(A) Shoppers with children may have less time to shop than shoppers without children.

(B) Shoppers did not usually bring all of their children to the supermarkets because they usually have an older child who is engaging in independent activities

在文檔中手寫與數位筆記對論文閱讀理解成效之研究 (頁 80-98)