Not Alma Stratejisi Araştırmalarının Sistematik Olarak İncelenmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 42 Issue: 2, 1555 - 1572, 29.08.2022

Yusuf Aydın

https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.912361

Abstract

Bu araştırmada Türkiye’de not alma stratejisi ile ilgili yapılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezleri ile
akademik makalelerin sistematik ve betimsel olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada
sistematik derleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Derlemeye alınacak araştırmalara anahtar sözcükler
aracılığıyla YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi, ULAKBİM TR Dizin ve Dergipark veri tabanlarından
ulaşılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre araştırmaların %83’ünde not almanın akademik başarı,
dinleme becerisi ve bilgilerin bellekte kalıcılığı gibi değişkenlerle olan ilişkisi irdelenmiştir.
Araştırmaların %65’i deneysel yöntemler kullanılarak yürütülmüş ve öğretim sürecinin işleyişini
ve öğrencilerin bu süreçle ilgili görüşlerini ortaya çıkarabilecek nitel yöntemlere çok az
başvurulmuştur. Bilgisayarla not alma, özel eğitime ihtiyaç duyan bireylerin eğitiminde not alma,
not almanın tarihi, bilişsel psikoloji ve not alma gibi not alma ile bağlantılı olabilecek pek çok
konu göz ardı edilmiştir. Yapılan çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğunda veriler üniversite ve ortaokul
öğrencilerinden toplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak not alma stratejisinin daha farklı alanlarla
ilişkilendirilmesi, kullanılagelen yöntem ve yaklaşımlar dışında ele alınması ve farklı çalışma
gruplarından veri toplanması gerektiği ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Keywords

Not alma, Sistematik derleme, Yüksek lisans tezleri, Doktora tezleri, Bilimsel makaleler.

A Systematic Review of Note Taking Strategy Researches

Abstract

This study aims at examining master's and doctoral theses, and scientific articles, which are
written on note taking in Turkey, systematically and descriptively. Systematic review method was
used in the research. The research to be included in the review were obtained from the databases
of Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Thesis Center, ULAKBİM TR Index and Dergipark with
keywords. According to the findings, 83% of the studies investigate the relationship between
notetaking and variables such as academic achievement, listening skill, and retention of
information in memory. 65% of the studies were conducted using experimental methods, and
qualitative methods that could reveal the functioning of the teaching process and students'
opinions about this process were rarely used. Many issues related to note taking such as note
taking with computers, note taking in the education of individuals in need of special education,
history of notetaking, cognitive psychology and note taking have been ignored. In most of the
studies, data were collected from university and secondary school students. As a result, it emerges
that the note taking strategy should be associated with different fields, it should be handled
outside of the methods and approaches used, and data should be collected from different study
groups.

Keywords

Note taking, Systematic review, Master’s theses, Doctoral theses, Scientific articles

References

• Atrash, A., Abel, M.-H., Moulin, C., Darène, N., Huet, F. ve Bruaux, S. (2015). Note-taking as a main feature in a social networking platform for small and medium sized enterprises. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 705–714.
• Blair, A. (2010). The Rise of Note‐Taking in Early Modern Europe. Intellectual History Review, 20(3), 303–316.
• Boyle, J. R. (2012). Note-Taking and Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities: Challenges and Solutions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 90–101.
• Boyle, J. R., Forchelli, G. A. ve Cariss, K. (2015). Note-Taking Interventions to Assist Students With Disabilities in Content Area Classes. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(3), 186–195.
• Bozkurt, Z. (2009). The effect of language of note taking on successful task completion. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Bui, D. C. ve Myerson, J. (2014). The role of working memory abilities in lecture note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12–22.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Castelló, M., & Monereo, C. (2005). Students’ Note-Taking as a Knowledge-Construction Tool. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5(3), 265–285.
• Corey, S. M. (1935). The efficacy of instruction in note making. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 188-194.
• Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. The Journal of Educational Research, 12(4), 282-291.
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Sage Publications.
• Divesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8-14.
• Dror, I. E. (2007). Gold mines and land mines in cognitive technology. Içinde I. E. Dror (Ed.), Cognitive Technologies and the Pragmatics of Cognition (ss. 1–7). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Flanigan, A. E., & Titsworth, S. (2020). The impact of digital distraction on lecture note taking and student learning. Instructional Science, 48(5), 495–524.
• Glesne, C. (2015). Ön hazırlıklar: sizin için iyi olanı yapmak (Çev.: S. Yalçınoğlu). İçinde A. Ersoy ve S. Yalçınoğlu (Editörler), Nitel araştırmaya giriş (ss. 37-84). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews: SAGE Publications.
• Güneş, F. (2007). Türkçe öğretimi ve zihinsel yapılandırma. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology. Horowitz, Irwin A.: Dept of Psychology, Oregon State U, 102 Moreland Hall, Corvalis, OR, US, 97331, [e-mail]: American Psychological Association.
• Kim, K., Turner, S. A., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2009). Requirements for electronic note taking systems: A field study of note taking in university classrooms. Education and Information Technologies, 14(3), 255–283.
• Landis, J. R. ve Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
• Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E. ve Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947–971.
• McGuire, L. C., Morian, A., Codding, R. ve Smyer, M. A. (2000). Older Adults’ Memory for Medical Information: Influence of Elderspeak and Note Taking. International Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 5(2), 117–128.
• Mueller, P. A. ve Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Technology and note-taking in the classroom, boardroom, hospital room, and courtroom. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 139–145.
• Oğuz, A. (1989). Derste not almanın öğrenme ve hatırlama düzeyine etkisi. (Doktora Tezi), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Pettricrew, M. ve Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: Blackwell Publishing.
• Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K. ve Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 1–30.
• Piolat, A., Olive, T. ve Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291–312.
• Reddington, L. A., Peverly, S. T. ve Block, C. J. (2015). An examination of some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender differences in lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1155–1185.
• Robinson, A. T. (1905). Note Taking. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., Publishers.
• Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Beattie, C. ve Lambert, J. (2012). An observational study of undergraduate students’ adoption of (mobile) note-taking software. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 308–317.
• Soll, J. (2010). From Note‐Taking to Data Banks: Personal and Institutional Information Management in Early Modern Europe. Intellectual History Review, 20(3), 355–375.
• Terry, W. S. (2013). İnsan Belleği: Kavramsal Yaklaşımlar (Çev.: B. Cangöz,). İçinde B. Cangöz (Editör), Öğrenme ve bellek (ps. 327-384). Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
• Trevors, G., Duffy, M. ve Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 507–528.
• Vekaria, P. C. ve Peverly, S. T. (2018). Lecture note-taking in postsecondary students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Reading and Writing, 31(7), 1551–1573.