Instructional Science 18: 217232 (1989) Q Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands 217 A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text KENNETH A. KIEWRA’, NELSON F. DUBOIS2, MARIBETH CHRISTENSEN3, SUNG-IL KIM3 & NANCY LINDBERG3 ‘Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE &VW0641, USA. 2 Department of Educational Psychology, State University of New York at Oneonta, Oneonta, NY 13820. USA. 3 Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT84322, USA. Abstract. previous research investigating the encoding. encoding-plus-storage, and external-storage fnncticns of note taking has failed to equate processing oppottunities among the groups. The present studies did so by having the encoding group take notes at two occasions without review, the encod- ing-plus-storage group take notes one time and review notes the next, and the external-storage group twice review a set of borrowed notes. Three forms of note taking were used: conventional, and note taking on skeletal and matrix frameworks. In both Experiment 1, involving lecture learning, and Experiment 2, involving text learning, an advantage was found for the encoding-plus-storage function on tests involving factual-recall and recognition performance but not on tests measuring higher-order perfommnce. With respect to note-taking forms, no advantage existed for any form when information was aquired fran lecture. When text material was used there was some advantage for conventional notes and a clear advantage for not taking notes at all, but instead twice reading the material. These findings were explained relative to observed note-taking behaviors, the opportunity for review, and the processing demands proposed by the combination of reading and note taking, particularly when notes must be classified into an existing framework. Introduction Traditional note-taking research has investigated the encoding and extemal- storage functions of note taking by comparing those who take notes but do not review (encoding) with those who take and review notes (external storage) (e.g., DiVesta and Gray, 1972; or see Kiewra 1985a, for a review). Kiewra and his col- leagues (Kiewra, DuBois, Christian, McShane, Meyerhoffer and Roskelley, 1988) suggested that this paradigm fails to offer a true, independent test of the extemal- storage function. Students who take and review their own notes have actually experienced both the encoding function plus the external-storage function of note taking. These researchers, therefore, reclassified the traditional external-storage function as an encoding-plus-storage function and proposed a new means for examining the external-storage function independently. This new function was represented by absent students who had no opportunity to view (nor encode) the lecture presentation, but who were each provided with a set of “borrowed” notes from attending students for review purposes. This variation produced three note- taking functions: the original encoding function (take notes/no review), the newly