Take note!

The handwriting of someone who doesn’t use a pen that often…

I find it difficult to imagine a psychology teacher who doesn’t think that students’ notes don’t matter. But we don’t often think about why they matter and how to help students to get the most out of making them. I’ve been asked to develop some CPLD materials on the subject of notes so I’ve been trying to distil my ideas about this recently. What follows may be stating the obvious but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, since the obvious is easy to overlook.

Why do notes matter?

Working memory capacity is limited, and the encoding of stable, long term memories is a slow and cumulative process. Effective note making strategies are therefore important for at least two reasons. First, notes are a holding area for material that has been presented to students but which has not yet been encoded (fully) into LTM. If note-making is effective, the ideas are recorded in ways that they can make sense of and encode later. Second, note making is a process which helps students learn. It gives them opportunities to identify what’s important, construct meaning from it and re-encode it in ways that require deep processing.  

What does research tell us about note making?

There’s a fair bit of research into the features of effective note-making, and relatively little of it will surprise anyone who has a basic familiarity with cognitive psychology. What follows is based principally on Beecher (1988), Marzano et al. (2001) and Marzano (2017).

  1. Verbatim note taking is relatively ineffective. Note making is most effective when the student is engaged in analysing and synthesising incoming information.
  2. Notes work best when student and teacher view them as a work in progress. Note making strategies should allow for the review and updating of notes, and teachers should plan for this as a distinct activity.
  3. Notes should be used as the basis for study for tests and examinations. This sounds obvious, but a surprising number of students don’t use their own notes in this way. This may be because it does not occur to them that their notes are for them (as opposed to for their teacher) or because the notes they have made are unsuitable for exam preparation.
  4. With note-making, less is NOT more. Students are sometimes instructed to keep notes as brief as possible. This is poor advice. Students who include more information in their notes tend to learn more and learn better.

Should notes be handwritten or typed?

It is becoming more common for students to create their notes using devices rather than writing them by hand. The evidence is against this. Although the typical student types faster than they write and therefore can record more (see point 4 above), students who type are typically focused on creating a verbatim record of what the teacher said and, therefore, are not particularly focused on making sense of the teacher’s messages (see point 1). Because hand writing is slower, students are forced to think harder about what matters and how best to encode it, which gives handwriting a significant cognitive edge over typing because information is processed more deeply (cf. Craik & Lockhart, 1972). In addition, the act of writing an idea down involves encoding a unique set of pen movements which may later act as a retrieval cue for the idea being encoded (cf. Tulving & Thompson, 1973; this might be familiar to any crossword solvers who have used the strategy of writing quickly unknown partial words to cue recall of candidate solutions). All keystrokes are roughly identical, so the same unique retrieval cues would not be available to those who type their notes. Clear empirical support for the idea that written note-making is superior to electronic comes from Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014), summarised usefully here by Cindi May.

How should we teach note making?

It is easy to assume that your students arrive with appropriate and effective skills and strategies already in place but, often, they don’t. Students can achieve a lot at GCSE with relatively poor note-making skills but then struggle at A – Level because their skills are inadequate for the volume of material they now encounter and the type and depth of thinking they are expected to do. Note making should therefore be taught explicitly as a skill. This means directly instructing students on how to do it, giving them opportunities to practice and giving them improvement-focused feedback on how they are doing. Although there is no automatic ‘best format’ for note-making (it depends on the subject, level and learners) I have no problem with being quite prescriptive about how students on my course are expected to make their notes. I generally set reading and note-making as advance preparation for class and I teach and expect my students to use a basic version of the Cornell system for their notes (example below).

Useful strategies for teaching note-making include:

  1. Giving examples of your own notes so that students have a clear idea of what they are expected to produce.
  2. Modelling the process of note-making for your students. Take a short text and give a copy to your students to read first. Then create notes ‘live’ either on the board or under a visualiser, ‘thinking aloud’ while you do it, so that students get access to your decision-making process. Saying things like, ‘I’m going to read the whole thing first, because I don’t know what really matters until I know what the whole text says’, or ‘This paragraph has a topic sentence, so I think this is important’, helps sensitise students to the key features of effective note-making.
  3. Scaffolding the note-making process. This could mean you modelling your note-making process for the first two paragraphs of a text and then telling students to continue on their own, while you circulate and give feedback. Or it could involve you creating a partial set of notes the students need to complete.
  4. Practising note-making as a regular task. Show you value it by setting it explicitly, checking it has been completed and offering feedback on what students have produced. This need not be time consuming. I regularly set note-making as a preparation task for class and my students are used to a routine whereby they start the class by ‘comparing notes’ while I circulate, check completion, ask the odd question about something that catches my eye and comment on features I like or dislike.
  5. Teaching explicitly the component processes of effective note making. First and foremost of these is summarising. The capacity to identify the critical ideas in a topic and describe the relationships between them is extraordinarily influential on subject learning, and so should be taught directly. Other useful skills include generating graphic or non-linguistic representations of ideas e.g. tables, spider diagrams, timelines, which can be used as part of note-making.

We introduced direct instruction in note-making several years ago when we rethought the design principles that underpin teaching in our department. It is part of our induction course and we insist on the Cornell system throughout the A – Level course. We have met remarkably little resistance from students. The overwhelming majority simply adopt our expectations as  ‘how we do things around here’ and it just becomes their default approach to note-making. I believe it contributes significantly to the quality of their learning, and I also believe that, by teaching note-making well, we equip our students with a skill set that will continue to serve them long after they have forgotten all the psychology they ever knew.


Beecher, J. (1988). Note-taking: What do we know about the benefits? ERIC Digest, EDO-CS, (37): 88-12.

Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Marzano, R.J. (2017). The New Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Solution Tree/ASCD.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mueller, P.A. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note making. Psychological Science,  25(6), 1159-1168.

Tulving, E. & Thompson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352-373.

Teaching effective revision strategies.

I have declared a personal war on exam technique.

Actually, I haven’t. Familiarity with the format of an assessment is a significant influence on students’ performance. What I’ve declared war on is the use of ‘poor exam technique’ as an excuse for under-performance that is actually caused by students’ failure to learn the material on which they will be examined.

‘Exam Technique’ attributions

Confronted with evidence of failure, many students find the ‘exam technique’ attractive because it allows them to sustain the belief that they are ‘bright’ and ‘a good student’. Most of the students I teach invest considerable time and effort in learning and preparing for tests/exams. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that the thought, ‘I have done badly’ is incompatible with the thought, ‘I worked hard for this’. This give rise to psychological discomfort. Consequently, the student is motivated to reduce the dissonance. This can be done by making a suitable attribution.

Three possible dissonance-reducing attributions are: (1) ‘I am not capable of learning’; (2) ‘I did the wrong things whilst learning’; and (3) ‘I had poor exam technique’. My suspicion is that (1) is unattractive because of its implications for self-image and (2) is unattractive because it implies the need to change longstanding beliefs and habits around learning and revision. That leaves (3), which preserves both positive self-image and entrenched learning habits by allowing the student to think, ‘It’s OK, I know this stuff really, it’s just my exam technique that let me down’.

I suspect this may also be true of some teachers, at least some of the time. Knowledge of a student’s failure is dissonant with our beliefs about our own teaching (most of us believe we are above average; Hoorens, 1993) and ‘exam technique’ usefully deflects doubts about whether the things we spend time and effort doing are actually working, especially since most of us (I believe) are apt to avoid attributing students’ failure to stupidity (cf. Dweck, 1999).

Like most teachers, I test my students fairly regularly, for a variety of reasons. I see relatively few examples of students’ performance being affected significantly by what I would characterise as exam technique (e.g. gross errors of time management, inappropriate application of material or misapprehension of question requirements). I wish it were otherwise, as problems of exam technique are, in my experience, relatively easy to fix. But, ultimately, problems of exam technique are reserved for students that actually know their stuff and, in the majority of cases, the core problem is that they don’t.

It’s students’ learning that needs fixing, not their exam technique.

Retrieval practice

There is now fairly unequivocal evidence that the learning strategy most likely to result in retention of material is retrieval practice, that is, the reconstruction, without prompts, of information previously learned and stored in long-term memory. Students who practice retrieving material from long-term memory forget less than those who do not (see this chapter by Karpicke, 2017, for a comprehensive review). Karpicke identifies several reasons why retrieval practice enhances learning and recall. First, retrieval practice is transfer-appropriate processing. That is, there is a large overlap between recall practice during learning and the way students will need to use material in their exams. Second, the effort involved in retrieval leaves memory traces strengthened. Third, retrieval practice incorporates retrieval cues into memory traces in helpful ways (semantic elaboration).

Although theoretical accounts of why retrieval practice works are under development, the empirical support for its use is unarguable. A study by Roediger and Karpicke (2006) is fairly representative. Student participants were given unfamiliar material to learn across four study sessions. One group was told to study (i.e. read and reread) the material in all four sessions (SSSS). A second group studied the material in the first three sessions and, in the fourth, tested themselves instead, by writing down as much of the material they could remember in free recall (SSST). A third group (STTT) were allowed to study the material only in the first session and then completed three free-recall tests (STTT). All the participants were then given a recall test. This was done 5 minutes after the end of the final session and then repeated after an interval of 1 week. After 5 minutes, students who had studied and restudied the material (SSSS) had higher recall than the other two groups. However, after 1 week, the STTT group had the highest recall, followed by SSST, with the SSSS group showing the lowest level of recall.

The problem of spontaneous adoption

This study, and the many confirmatory findings, demonstrates the superiority of retrieval-based learning over restudying for retention of material over the longer term. It also hints at why many of our students may fail to adopt retrieval-based revision methods even when advised to do so: immediate recall in Roediger and Karpicke’s study was better when the students ‘crammed’. Since a typical student probably doesn’t retest themselves over longer intervals in any systematic way, they remain unaware of how quickly they forget information that has been learned that way.

Ariel and Karpicke (2018) highlight a number of unhelpful beliefs that students (and teachers) often hold that militate against the adoption of retrieval-based study strategies. First, there is the belief that restudying is the most effective way of learning material. Second, there is the belief that, whilst retrieval is a suitable way of monitoring learning, it does not, in itself, provide benefits to recall. Third, even when students do use retrieval-based methods, students tend to rely on a ‘one and done’ strategy, whereas the evidence is that it is repeated retrieval that has the most significant impact on retention.

Ariel and Karpicke’s paper describes a study showing that a straightforward intervention increased the spontaneous adoption of retrieval practice in a group of student participants. They were given the task of learning English-Lithuanian word translations. They used software that allowed them to chose between ‘studying’ (i.e. reading and rereading) and ‘practising’ (i.e. being tested). Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group who were simply told to learn as many of the words as possible in preparation for a final test or to a retrieval practice instructions group who were given (1) information about the superiority of retrieval over restudying; (2) a graph supporting this information; and (3) the advice that the best way of learning for the recall test was to ensure that each translation had been recalled at least three times before dropping it from study.

Source: Ariel & Karpicke (2018)

Students who received the retrieval practice instructions made more spontaneous use of retrieval practice during learning and performed better on the Lithuanian translations than the controls. Importantly, in a transfer test given 1 week later, those who had received the retrieval instructions made significantly more use of self-testing on a task involving learning English-Swahili translations.

A card-based revision strategy

I was sufficiently impressed by these results to use them as the basis of an attempt to improve my students’ use of effective learning and revision strategies. I used ‘statistical test choice’ as the focus since it is a small and discrete body of material, it is straightforward to test both recall and transfer of learning and it is something my Y12 students had not encountered before. I taught the content in a conventional way. Then, after explaining and justifying the revision strategy I wanted them to use, I gave each student a set of revision cards for statistical test choice. These are set up so that, when photocopied back-to-back, there is a question on one side of each card and the relevant answer on the other.

I explained that revision with these cards should be done as follows (the strategy is closely based on the one designed by Ariel and Karpicke):

  1. Create space on your desk for three piles of cards: STUDY, PRACTICE and DONE.
  2. Start by testing yourself on every card.
  3. If you can answer a question fully and accurately, put it on the PRACTICE pile. If you cannot, put it on the STUDY pile.
  4. Alternate between STUDY and PRACTICE. Any card you have studied should be put on the PRACTICE pile. Any card you have successfully retrieved should be returned to the PRACTICE pile. Any card you have been unable to retrieve should be returned to the STUDY pile.
  5. If you have successfully retrieved a card three times, put it on the DONE pile.

During the ensuing study session, cards should gradually work their way across from the STUDY pile to the DONE pile.

I demonstrated this process, and then got the students to try it. I circulated and watched how they went about it, coaching where necessary. Over the course of the lesson I gave them opportunities to use the revision strategy. In subsequent lessons, I tested their recall using this Socrative quiz, which tests recall of statistical decision rules and has no applied element. I asked the students to use the revision cards for 20 minutes before their next lesson.

Here are the quiz results at the start of the next lesson (the following day):

The majority of students had 100% recall, although some students either had not acquired the material or had forgotten it very quickly. At the end of the lessons, the quiz was repeated:

Recall was higher; student 10 went from 13% to 100% correct. The quiz was repeated after a four-day interval:

Interestingly, whilst the majority of the students retained 100% recall, student 10’s recall had fallen to 38%. It is interesting to speculate whether this was due to individual differences in memory or to differences in strategy adoption. At the end of the lesson, recall looked like this:

Student 10’s recall had recovered, and, overall, recall was very high (3 incorrect responses in 120 recall trials).

What have I learned?

My informal investigations with my Year 12s suggest that the card-based revision strategy using retrieval practice is at least as effective as what the students were already doing. Their reactions to the Socrative assessment feedback suggested that they appreciated the impact the strategy was having on their retention. They also found the card-based strategy acceptable and even fun, particularly if they added a social element.

This is all quite encouraging, so I have now started investigating whether the strategy transfers well to less well-structured material. Studies in this area typically use very well-structured material as it’s easy to test recall unambiguously, so it is somewhat open to question whether this card-based strategy requires adapting for use with less well-structured content. I have created a set of revision cards for learning the classic study by Baddeley (1966), which is a requirement of the Edexcel specification and one on which my students performed poorly in their recent end-of-year examination. It will be interesting to see whether it has a similar impact, and whether the students find it as acceptable for this sort of content.

Assuming that it works, my intention is to develop the card-based revision strategy with my Year 12s over the remainder of their course. The aim will be to shift the students from relying on me to make the revision cards and spontaneously to create and use their own as part of their ongoing preparations for their final exams. Depending on how this works out, I would consider adding the card-based strategy to our induction programme at the start of Year 12, alongside the other elements we currently promote as essential, including reciprocal teaching and the Cornell note-making system.


Many of the ideas for this post came out of conversations with Andy Bailey.


Ariel, R. & Karpicke, J.D. (2018). Improving self-regulated learning with a retrieval practice intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 43-56.

Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 302–309.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Hove: Psychology Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social somparison. European Review of Social Psychology. 4(1), 113–139.

Karpicke, J.D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: a decade of progress. In J.H. Byrne (Ed.) “Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference (Second Edition)” pp.487-514. Oxford: Elsevier.

Resources: study skills and attitudes

Here are some things I’ve made to support the development of effective study skills. There’s a session on motivation with a slideshow about the importance of self-control and an accompanying lesson plan. There’s also a session on note-making with a slideshow, a lesson plan and a short text about effective note making. These are pitched for Year 12 students but could be adapted fairly easily for other age groups.