article summary assignment

1

Name

Article Summary Assignment

Note-taking is usually associated with students; therefore, the majority of research on

note-taking has generally focused on academic uses. However, note-taking may also be

beneficial to individuals in non-academic settings who wish to retain information for subsequent

use. Note-taking is quite common in other domains such as legal situations, counseling sessions,

and interviewing areas (Hartley, 2002) but has not received much research attention. Particularly,

there is a dearth of research on note-taking in investigative interviews despite the fact that in

some jurisdictions (e.g., Israel) interviewer notes or written reports may be accepted in lieu of

electronic recordings of investigative interviews (Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Hershkowitz &

Horowitz, 2000). It is therefore important to determine whether note-taking aids subsequent

interviewer recall of investigative interviews.

In learning environments, several studies by Kiewra and colleagues have noted three

functions of note-taking: encoding, external storage, and encoding plus external storage (Kiewra,

1989; Kiewra, DuBois, Christian, McShane, Meyerhoffer, & Reoskelley, 1991; Benton, Kiewra,

Whitfill, & Dennison, 1993). Encoding facilitates learning through the process of note-taking

itself whereas external storage facilitates recall through reviewing notes. The encoding plus

external storage function enhances learning through both the process of encoding, while taking

notes, and storage, by reviewing notes at a later time. External storage refers to instances where

notes are only reviewed before recall (i.e., borrowing another’s notes) and are not actually

encoded first. Kiewra, DuBois, Christian, McShane, Meyerhoffer and Reoskelley (1991) found

that there were no differences in performance scores for a lecture recall task between individuals

who took notes and listened to a lecture and those who only listened. However, significant

Commented [A.H.1]: Extending the topic to other domains and explaining how it relates to the present topic.

Commented [AHG2]: Include all authors’ last names the first time a source is cited. Switch to Lamb et al. in subsequent citations.

Commented [A.H.3]: Explaining the need for new research/ why the present study is important.

2

differences were found between those who did not review notes and those who either reviewed

their own notes (encoding plus external storage) or reviewed borrowed notes (external storage).

The encoding plus external storage group outperformed all other groups. The authors explain

these findings as a repetition effect; in the encoding plus storage function information is accessed

twice whereas in the other functions information is accessed only once. Similar effects of

reviewing notes were reported by Rickards and McCormick (1988), who found that students who

reviewed notes prior to testing produced 40%-50% more accurate recall than those who did not.

If these findings generalize to note-taking during investigative interviews then interviewers will

have to review their notes either before generating a report or before offering testimony, in order

for increased recall to be facilitated. The process of taking notes itself may not be enough to

increase interviewer recall at a later time.

For the encoding function of note-taking it is further believed that the process of note-

taking itself increases recall due to generative processing (Benton et al., 1993). Benton et al.

(1993) suggest that a generation effect occurs during encoding. Specifically, the generating

process of note-taking leads to the reprocessing of information, which in turn facilitates long-

term memory. The authors evaluated the effects of the three note-taking functions and the

generation effect on writing processes. Participants wrote essays based on a lecture and note-

taking was manipulated. Results indicate that those who used their notes to write the essay wrote

longer, more coherent and cohesive essays than those who did not. Once again, findings support

the superiority of the encoding plus storage function over the encoding function of note-taking.

In their second study, the authors implemented a one-week delay between the lecture and essay.

They found that essays were significantly longer after a one-week delay for those participants

using notes during recall; using notes also had a significant effect on generating and organizing

Commented [AHG4]: Explaining statistically significant findings.

Commented [A.H.5]: Evaluating the authors’ findings.

Commented [AHG6]: Extending the reviewed study to prior research on the topic.

Commented [A.H.7]: How these findings relate to the current study.

Commented [A.H.8]: Transition from previous topic.

Commented [AHG9]: Use of et al. in subsequent citation.

Commented [AHG10]: Summarizing what the authors’ method and results.

Commented [AHG11]: Further establishing, what we know.

3

processes: Notes were used to compensate for the loss of memory due to the delay. It appears

then that taking notes during report writing may also aid the memory of investigative

interviewers, especially if time delays are present.

However, an important difference between note-taking in an academic learning and a

forensic interviewing context should be pointed out. A note-taker in academic settings is a rather

passive recipient of information and is in only limited interaction with the information giver. A

forensic interviewer on the other hand stands in interaction with the interviewee and is in a rather

active (listener) role. Unlike an academic learner, investigators’ notes should also account for

their own utterances and interactional parts to account for overall notes’ veracity later. Therefore,

the above study allows for only limited insight into note-taking in a forensic context.

Commented [A.H.12]: Tying these finding with the current research topic.

Commented [A.H.13]: Describing a limitation of the reviewed study and explaining why research on note-taking in a forensic

setting is needed.

Commented [AHG14]: Including limitations of the study.

4

References

Benton, S. L., Kiewra, K. A., Whitfill, J. M., & Dennison, R. (1993). Encoding and

external-storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology,

85(2), 267-280.

Hartley, J. (2002). Notetaking in non-academic settings: A review. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 16, 559-574.

Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and

beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147-172.

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., &

Reoskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240-245.

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000).

Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with child

abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 699-708.

Rickards, J. P. & McCormick, C. B. (1988). Effects of interspersed conceptual prequestions on

note-taking in listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 592-

594.