4.4 Article

Learning neuroscience: Investigating influences of notetaking materials and individual differences

期刊

LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102243

关键词

Classroom learning; Individual differences; Diagrams; Notetaking; Spatial cognition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the interactions between notetaking materials and individual differences on learning. The overall effects of notetaking materials on learning were minimal, but spatial and verbal reasoning were related to learning. In a handwritten condition, verbatim copying was associated with lower learning whereas more key terms in notes was associated with higher learning. Therefore, to best support neuroscience learning in the classroom, individual differences and their interactions with notetaking materials must be considered.
How can we support classroom learning? Individual differences between students (e.g., cognitive skills and notetaking styles) is one factor that may relate to learning and interact with notetaking materials (e.g., diagram handouts and notetaking medium) to influence learning. However, the interaction between these factors is not well-understood. Accordingly, in this study, we presented short neuroscience lectures to 18-23-year-old undergraduates and investigated the interactions between notetaking materials and individual differences (cognitive skills: spatial/verbal reasoning; and notetaking style: verbatim copying/key terms) on learning. We found minimal overall effects of notetaking materials on learning. However, spatial and verbal reasoning related to learning. Additionally, in a handwritten condition, verbatim copying in notes was associated with lower learning whereas more key terms in notes was associated with higher learning. These results demonstrate that, to best support neuroscience learning in the classroom, we must consider individual differences and how they interact with notetaking materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据