DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED


  • As used in this report, a “note” refers to a discrete written bit of knowledge evidenced on the photocopies of student material developed in class.  A “note” might be a complete sentence, a bulleted note, a phrase set off with punctuation marks, a line on a handout, etc..   Of course since note-taking varied from one student to another in a highly personalized way, I maintained a consistent counting method only within one specific student’s own material.
  • Similarly, whenever “volume” of note-taking is discussed, it refers to the number of discrete “notes” by a student.  Of course, ten “notes” for one student might include 100 actual words, whereas for another student it might only write 50 actual words or even use abbreviations!

>> See Student Sample


DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

INITIAL DATA ANALYSIS

In order to refer to various ranges of student work and performance, several sets of terms were developed from the raw material.  Throughout this section, the following are used in relation to the Pre-Event Survey [see PDF attachment]:

  • HIGH-readers.  Students who self-reported a “close or deep” pre-class reading of the textual material.  In a class of 30 students, five fit this classification.
  • LOW-readers.  Students who self-reported a “skim/part” or “did not read” pre-class reading of the textual material.  In a class of 30 students, six fit this classification.
  • A further 19 students were in the MID-range between these extremes.

>> Surveys

 

Similarly, the following were derived from the video recording of the class:

  • HIGH-verbals. Students with at least three verbal interactions.  There were 9 students in the range.
  • MID-verbals. There were seven students who had one or two verbal interactions during class.
  • NON-verbals. These were the 12 students who had no verbal interactions with the teacher or fellow classmates.

Students are also divided into four equal groups when described by the volume of notes that each made.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

STUDY QUESTION – 1

How does pre-class preparatory textual reading impact in-class note-taking during directed-discussion?

HIGH-readers took significantly more of their notes from material that originated with the teacher’s delivery (55%) than they took from material that originated in class discussion (44%).  However, they wrote down a slightly lower volume of notes in response to the class setting.  Given that each student would develop very personalized notes, this difference does not seem especially significant.

As might be anticipated, LOW-readers developed notes that originated more frequently from class-discussion (59%) than from the teacher’s delivery (41%).  This was likely due to the fact that they had less content available to them before class, so they took more of their notes from class interaction.  In fact, LOW-readers took the highest volume of notes of the three reading clusters [HIGH-readers -- 50.0%; MID-readers – 50.9%; LOW-readers – 54.5%].  A classroom teacher would hope that a student who read little before class would make it up through in-class effort.  However, when it comes to earned grades, how successful was that approach remains to be answered.

Interestingly, there was no correlation between how much/well a student read before class and how verbal they were in class itself.

 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

STUDY QUESTION – 2

How does a student’s in-class verbal participation impact his/her note-taking during directed-discussion?

HIGH-verbal students took significantly more notes that originated from the teacher’s delivery (57%) than from the discussion component (39%).  It seems that HIGH-verbals frequently sought clarification of teacher-delivered content and, too, may not have needed to write down what they heard or spoke.  Auditory learners probably found that writing it down again (!) was unnecessary.

NON-verbal students were evenly split on teacher-delivered content (50%) and discussion-driven material (49%).  As might be expected, the volume of their note-taking was much higher (58.1% of their notes) than was that of HIGH-verbals (49.2%).  Apparently, it is harder to write and talk at the same time.

For reference, actual incidents of verbal interaction remained relatively stable throughout the class…aside from a surge of organizational and logistical questions at the beginning of class.  This chart shows incidents in five-minute intervals.

 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.



STUDY QUESTION – 3

How do pre-class preparatory textual reading and in-class note-taking in a directed-discussion format impact performance on teacher-developed assessments?

As disclaimed, I am aware that the volume of notes does not necessarily correlate to the quality of those notes.  Teachers intuitively know this.  In fact, the highest quarter of the students (by volume of notes) did not score significantly higher (82.4% average score on the relevant Unit Exam) than did the lowest quarter of the students (80.9%).

On the other hand, there was a startling relationship of pre-class text reading and grades earned on teacher-developed assessments.  HIGH-readers (89.9%) scored much better than the MID-readers (79.8%) and dramatically better than LOW-readers (69.8%).

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.



STUDY QUESTION – 4

How do a student’s in-class verbal participation and in-class note-taking in a directed-discussion format impact performance on teacher-developed assessments?

There was virtually no difference in performance on a teacher-assessment if a student was HIGH-verbal (78.2%), MID-verbal (79.6%), or NON-verbal (78.7%).  This might suggest that the manner in which a student developed his/her notes does not matter so much as what happens outside of class, especially in terms of pre-class reading preparation.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.