Cornell Note AAQ

The study involved 160 National Certificate of Education (N.C.E.) students from two Colleges of Education in Plateau State, Nigeria who volunteered to participate in the study. These students were randomly assigned to six experimental groups and two control groups. The experimental groups were trained in Cornell, verbatim, and outline note-taking strategies, while the control groups received no specific note-taking training. The eight groups were as follows: Group 1: Take Cornell notes – Review Cornell notes Group 2: Take Cornell notes – No review Group 3: Take outline notes – Review outline notes Group 4: Take outline notes – No review Group 5: Take verbatim notes – Review verbatim notes Group 6: Take verbatim notes – No review Group 7: Take no notes – Review lecturer’s note Group 8: Take no notes – No review

A 2x4 factorial design was employed, with the note-taking strategies (Cornell, verbatim, outline, and no notes) crossed with two review conditions (review and no review). Participants were randomly assigned to eight groups based on these factors. This design allowed the researcher to systematically investigate the main effects and interaction effects of note-taking strategies and review on recall. The instruments for data collection included free-recall tests, multiple-choice questions, true/false questions, and essay tests. Data were analyzed using mean scores, t-tests, one-way ANOVA, 2x4 ANOVA, and Tukey HSD tests to determine the effectiveness of the note-taking strategies.

The study revealed significant differences among the note-taking strategies in terms of their effectiveness in enhancing information retrieval. For the free recall test, the mean scores were as follows: Cornell note-takers scored highest with a mean of 8.60, followed by outline note-takers with a mean of 6.50, no-note takers with a mean of 5.25, and verbatim note-takers with the lowest mean of 4.10. In the achievement test, Cornell note-takers again had the highest mean score of 13.05, outline note-takers had a mean of 11.98, no-note takers had a mean of 10.95, and verbatim note-takers had the lowest mean of 10.35. The statistical analysis using 2x4 ANOVA confirmed the significant main effects of note-taking styles on retrieval performance (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the review condition had a significant effect on retrieval, with students who reviewed their notes performing better than those who did not. The mean scores for students who reviewed their notes were 6.8 in the free recall test and 12.2 in the achievement test, compared to 5.4 and 11.0, respectively, for students who did not review. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that Cornell note-taking was the most effective strategy, significantly outperforming both outline and verbatim note-taking. The interaction effect between note-taking style and review condition was also significant, suggesting that the effectiveness of note-taking strategies is influenced by whether or not students review their notes. In summary, the results demonstrated that Cornell note-taking, coupled with review, is the most effective method for enhancing the retrieval of lecture information. This highlights the importance of structured note-taking and regular review in improving academic performance.