Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education, Department of Administration and Foundations
John Rickards (1980)
Notetaking, Underlining, Inserted Questions, and Organizers in Text: Research Conclusions and Educational Implications.Educational Technology archive, 20
J. Davis, Bernard Frank (1979)
Learning and memory of field independent-dependent individualsJournal of Research in Personality, 13
P. Weener (1974)
Note taking and student verbalization as instrumental learning activitiesInstructional Science, 3
Carol Carrier, Amy Titus (1981)
Effects of Notetaking Pretraining and Test Mode Expectations on Learning from LecturesAmerican Educational Research Journal, 18
D. Goodenough (1975)
The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory.Psychological bulletin, 83 4
C. Marmar (1982)
Conitive Styles: Essence and OriginsJournal of The American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21
Bernard Frank (1983)
Flexibility of information processing and the memory of field-independent and field-dependent learnersJournal of Research in Personality, 17
J. French, Ruth Ekstrom, Leighton Price (1963)
MANUAL FOR KIT OF REFERENCE TESTS FOR COGNITIVE FACTORS (REVISED 1963)
H. Witkin, C. Moore, D. Goodenough, P. Cox (1975)
FIELD‐DEPENDENT AND FIELD‐INDEPENDENT COGNITIVE STYLES AND THEIR EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONSPsychometrika, 1975
H. Eysenck (1982)
Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Herman A. Witkin and Donald R. Goodenough International Universities Press, New York (1981). 141 pp.Personality and Individual Differences, 3
L. Annis, J. Davis (1978)
Study Techniques and Cognitive Style: Their Effect on Recall and Recognition.Journal of Educational Research, 71
L. Annis (1979)
Effect of Cognitive Style and Learning Passage Organization on Study Technique Effectiveness.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71
B. Bloom, D. Krathwohl (1966)
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
Field-independent and field-dependent students listened to a taped lecture under one of four study technique conditions: (a) no notes, (b) student’s notes, (c) outline framework plus student’s notes, and (d) complete outline plus student’s notes. After listening to the lecture, all students were permitted a 10-minute review period, which was followed by a 20-item multiple choice test. Analyses of test performance and notes taken yielded results consistent with field independence-dependence theory. In particular, analyses of the significant interaction of Cognitive Style × Study Technique revealed that field-independent students performed better than field-dependent students under the student’s notes condition. Also, field-dependent students performed significantly worse under the student‘s notes condition than did field-dependent students under the complete outline condition. Notes of field-independent students were more efficient and tended to be in an outline format more often than notes of field-dependent students. The results are discussed in terms of explanations of performance differences, relevance for future notetaking research, and implications for educational practices.
American Educational Research Journal – SAGE
Published: Jun 24, 2016
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.