Lecture note-taking is a ubiquitous student activity from the elementary to the university level. It is defined as an activity that includes writing on learning materials, underlining, highlighting, and marking important points in class. Lecture note-taking is an essential activity that promotes learning (Peper and Mayer, 1986; Christopoulos et al., 1987; Peverly et al., 2003). Theories on note-taking propose two reasons why note-taking is beneficial for learning (Di Vesta and Gray, 1972). On one hand, according to the encoding perspective, note-taking is the act of recording information from a lecture, which benefits students through their engagement at a deeper processing level. On the other hand, according to the external storage perspective, the process of note-taking allows students to review, process, and commit information to memory. In this study, we were interested in how students’ note-taking affected their understanding of lectures while receiving knowledge in the classroom. Hence, this study focused on the encoding function of note-taking.

Studies have pointed out that the encoding function of note-taking is effective because it encourages the processing of information (e.g., Kiewra, 1985). To evaluate the effectiveness of this encoding function, studies have generally compared the test performance of a note-taking group that could not review their notes with a listening-only group that did not take notes. Kiewra (1985) qualitatively analyzed 56 studies on the efficacy of encoding, from which there were 33 studies that displayed effects in favor of note-taking. Moreover, a meta-analysis of the encoding effect by Kobayashi (2006) found that, compared to listening only, note-taking without review had a small effect on test performance (d = 0.22).

However, taking notes does not necessarily lead to understanding. For example, Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) reported that students who simply transcribed the presented content verbatim had inhibited learning. In addition, compared with university students, secondary students may act in a less self-regulated manner, as they rely on the teacher’s instructions and supplement their notes on their own only minimally (Yokoi, 1999). Moreover, in Shiba’s (2018) tutoring, the student being instructed always focused on the formality of the notes; for instance, “taking neat notes is studying,” rather than the content to be written down. Thus, although lecture note-taking is vital in the classroom, the effect on promoting learning may depend on how it is used. Furthermore, considering that the process of note-taking affects understanding of information, it would be appropriate to also consider that there are shallow and deep levels in lecture note-taking. For example, repeated transcribing might be a shallow level of note-taking as it does not contribute to understanding or classroom learning.

Lecture note-taking is also a critical learning strategy for developing self-regulated learning at the secondary level (Zimmerman et al., 1996). From the perspective of self-regulated learning, in addition to deep and shallow levels in lecture note-taking, metacognitive aspects such as monitoring might also be important. Self-regulated learning is considered a proactive process through which students acquire academic skills—setting goals, selecting and deploying strategies, and self-monitoring their effectiveness (Zimmerman, 2008)—which are regarded as valuable skills learned during school years and beyond (cf. lifelong learning; OECD iLibrary, 2015). The basic process of self-regulated learning is viewed as a three-stage cycle: forethought, performance, and self-reflection (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2011). To complete the cycle, students need to monitor their own cognitive processes and then adjust/control them. For example, while taking lecture notes, it might be vital to monitor their comprehension, mark what they do not understand during class, and use the notes taken by them to adjust learning activities after class. Notably, previous studies concerning effective note-taking have only focused on what is written, that is, the results of note-taking. Thus, the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of lecture note-taking have not been examined. The present study focuses on the encoding function of note-taking, which is regarded as promoting students’ understanding. In addition, we examined lecture note-taking on the axes of cognitive aspects, which consist of deep and shallow levels, and metacognitive aspects to grasp the whole figure of lecture note-taking from the viewpoint of cognition and metacognition.

Previous studies have measured the effects of lecture note-taking on learning by simply measuring the note quantity. Many studies have shown that the more notes students write in class, the better they perform on tests like fact recall and concept application tests (e.g., Kiewra and Benton, 1988; Peverly et al., 2007; Mueller and Oppenheimer, 2014). However, from this point of view, these studies could not explain why taking more notes verbatim had a negative relationship with the test performance of participants (Mueller and Oppenheimer, 2014).

Further, lecture note-taking is measured in terms of the quality of the notes; however, its criteria are varied. Numerous studies have examined the impact of note quality on memory of lecture content (Peverly et al., 2007, 2013; Peverly and Sumowski, 2012; Nakayama et al., 2017). Previous studies have shown that high-quality note-taking positively affects memory tests; however, the criteria for note quality vary across studies (e.g., Peverly and Sumowski, 2012).

Nevertheless, the critical issue is that cognitive processes of lecture note-taking are not considered. Both quantity and quality of notes are examined only in terms of the results of lecture note-taking; however, what the learner was thinking at the time is ignored, even though it is essential. For instance, even if the students write the same note, it is difficult to determine whether they just copied it verbatim or took it because they thought it was important. That is, there is a possibility that even if the same note contents are written, the learning effect would be different because of the different cognitive processes involved. However, without considering this, the true quality of lecture note-taking cannot be examined.

For example, in the study of learning strategies, the axes of shallow and deep strategies have been proposed and discussed (e.g., Marton and Säaljö, 1976; Murayama, 2007). We consider that lecture note-taking should exist these deep and shallow level use axes. Previous studies have assessed the quality of cognitive activity along these axes. For instance, Marton and Säaljö (1976) interviewed university students to understand their learning processes and discovered two learning strategies: surface-level and deep-level processing. In addition, learners who use deep-level processing strategies performed better than those who use surface-level processing strategies (e.g., Ramsden, 1988). However, these aspects of lecture note-taking have not been examined thus far. For example, copying down might be shallow processing of note-taking, while understanding the meaning or clarifying what is not understood might be deep processing. Nevertheless, it is unknown what the specifics are.

This study aimed to investigate cognitive activities that underlie variations in lecture note-taking. This study sampled data from different cultural environments in Japan and China to increase the possible range of note-taking approaches that could be observed. For example, on the one hand, in Japan, there is a strong cultural emphasis on the teachers’ practices regarding writing on the blackboard and note-taking instructions (e.g., Ohtsubo and Higashibata, 2012). In addition, the Japanese national curriculum refers to using lecture notes as an assessment of “independent attitude toward learning (Ministry of Education, Culture Sports Science and Technology, 2020).” On the other hand, note-taking tends not to be emphasized in China (Wang, 2014). Furthermore, the Chinese national curriculum makes no specific mention of lecture note-taking. Thus, in these different contexts regarding note-taking, we considered that Japanese and Chinese students might engage in different note-taking activities.

To investigate cognitive activities that underlie variations in lecture note-taking, this study focuses on lecture note-taking during mathematics classes. First, mathematics has been considered a critical area for self-regulation because many students face difficulty with it, and effective use of learning strategies can enhance their learning and achievement (Patricia et al., 2017). However, even university students might not be able to take notes efficiently in their mathematics class (Fukawa-Connelly et al., 2017). We consider that identifying how students take notes in math class is vital for subsequent educational practice. Further, in this study, we will also examine the factors influencing students’ lecture note-taking use, such as deep-level note-taking. Our results could lead to fostering students’ use of deep note-taking.

Students’ behavior can be greatly influenced by their beliefs (Dunlosky et al., 2015). It was noted that their note-taking beliefs affected the actual use of the notes (e.g., Bonner and Holliday, 2006; Witherby and Tauber, 2019). For example, previous studies have reported that students take notes as they believe that it helps them understand the lesson (Van Meter et al., 1994). This is consistent with the perspective of the encoding function of note-taking. However, beliefs about the other storage functions—such as taking notes for later reviews—have not been addressed. Based on previous findings, we can predict that the beliefs students hold will influence whether they take notes, while its explicit effects remain unknown.

Furthermore, students’ use of note-taking also appears to be influenced by external factors, such as teachers’ instruction. For instance, Titsworth (2001, 2004) and Titsworth and Kiewra (2004) found that inserting organizational cues and providing explicit statements that a theory or sub-theme of the theory was about to be discussed in a lecture can lead to an increase in the quality and quantity of information in notes as well as better test performance. Moreover, it was reported that inserting pauses in a lecture allows students time to consult with their peers or instructors (Ruhl, 1996), and preparing copies of PowerPoint slides for students (e.g., Marsh and Sink, 2010; Williams et al., 2012) can enhance their learning. From these studies, we can infer that the instructions provided by teachers affect students’ note-taking or directly affect their learning. However, the specifics are unknown; few studies have investigated the effects of the different types of note-taking instruction and their effect on students’ actual use of note-taking.

To better explore how different types of note-taking instruction influence note-taking, we believed it would be informative to collect data from both Japan and China. Although both Japan and China are considered to have high academic achievement among students in East Asia, the instruction style for note-taking may differ between them. For example, most teachers in China did not emphasize how to take notes in class (e.g., Chen, 2000; Wang, 2014). However, teachers’ blackboard instructions and note-taking are stressed in Japan (Ohtsubo and Higashibata, 2012). For example, Uosaki (2017) conducted a questionnaire survey of university students and reported that students had received teachers’ instruction on items such as “writing in a way that allows for easy note review,” “writing important words,” and “writing a large amount of text” before. From these studies, we assumed that collecting data from both Japan and China would allow for a better exploration of the effects of different note-taking instructions.

The primary purpose of this study was to explore how lecture note-taking is used as a cognitive activity, as well as which attributes of students and what instructions from teachers would affect the use of note-taking. We conducted interviews with Japanese and Chinese high school students about their lecture note-taking uses in class. Thus, sampling data from different cultural environments was carried out to increase the possible range of note-taking approaches that could be observed. Furthermore, it allows for a better exploration of the underlying factors of students’ note-taking. An investigation of these issues can give us valuable insights into why learners use note-taking less effectively and the crucial facet that lecture note-taking functions. In addition, strategies for note-taking instructions can be suggested to develop self-regulated learners in educational practice.

A qualitative research design was used to explore the cognitive activities underlying students’ various lecture note-taking, and the background factors that might influence it. We used semi-structured qualitative interviews and then applied thematic analysis, as proposed by Boyatzis (1998).

This study applied the interview method to explore how lecture note-taking is used as a cognitive activity and the factors influencing the use of note-taking. Through thematic analysis, a new framework consisting of shallow and deep lecture note-taking was derived. Moreover, the interviews allowed us to clarify the specific characteristics of shallow and deep lecture note-taking. In addition, by comparing students from Japan and China, we inferred that the differences in lecture notes may result from the influence of the students’ beliefs and teachers’ instruction styles.

Regarding lecture note-taking as a cognitive activity, based on models of learning strategies studies and using thematic analysis, a new framework of lecture note-taking comprising shallow lecture note-taking and deep lecture note-taking (cognitive function, metacognitive function, and resource management function) was proposed. In this new framework, some new aspects of lecture note-taking, such as the metacognitive function, were identified. This allowed us to go beyond and extend the previous discussion (e.g., Di Vesta and Gray, 1972; Kiewra and Benton, 1988; Nakayama et al., 2017) in note-taking.

Moreover, based on this new framework, similarities and differences in lecture note-taking between Japanese and Chinese students were also clarified. From a glimpse of the participants’ actual notes, we found that the overall difference was that Japanese students take comprehensive notes in their notebooks while Chinese students take selective notes directly in their textbooks. Meanwhile, more specific characteristics between the two groups were found using the comparison method in the thematic analysis. Regarding shallow lecture note-taking, Japanese students reported more passive use of note-taking. On the other hand, although Chinese and Japanese students were relatively consistent in utilizing deep lecture note-taking for their learning, specific differences were seen in each function by comparing the two groups through the thematic analysis. For example, in terms of the resource management function, activities such as “notes on what was heard from others” were only reported by Japanese students. It can be inferred that there might be more interactive activities in the Japanese classroom, allowing students to ask others in class. Furthermore, only Chinese students addressed “marking points in the textbook.” We could ascertain that textbooks may be used more often in a Chinese math class so that students take notes directly in the textbook.

Regarding which factor would affect the use of note-taking, we explored how students’ perceptions of note-taking and beliefs about teachers’ instruction might influence their note-taking. First, consistent with the encoding perspective of note-taking theory, both groups of students stated that they take notes because it helps them understand lecture contents (Van Meter et al., 1994; Bonner and Holliday, 2006). Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous study’s finding that college students mentioned little about taking notes for review, high school students in our study explicitly talked about it, suggesting the need to examine note-taking at different stages. In addition, there were differences in the students’ beliefs regarding lecture note-taking for review. Almost all Japanese students took notes for simple review, while some Chinese students took lecture notes to make their own notes after class, which may explain the abovementioned differences in their lecture note-taking.

However, in contrast to prior studies (e.g., Marsh and Sink, 2010), we found several aspects of instruction about note-taking—directions for what to write, cues for what is essential, note assessment, and note instructions—that influence lecture note-taking. Based on the differences between Japanese and Chinese students in lecture note-taking, it can be inferred that Japanese students are more aware of their teacher’s explicit instructions on the notes’ content and the assessment of their notes. This may lead to taking a few more notes, but not necessarily better ones. This study also explored different instructional approaches to note-taking, knowing that there are instructional approaches at the secondary level that are different from those at the university level; this gives us insights into the instructions that should be provided to improve student learning.

This study has several limitations and recommendations for follow-up research. Although the potential factors affecting note-taking have been discussed, there is no discussion on their specific effects. Second, the small sample size does not allow generalization to all secondary school students; thus, a larger sample of Japanese and Chinese students would allow for a more representative picture of secondary school students’ lecture note-taking. Moreover, since this study explored note-taking activities in mathematics classes, whether the findings are transferable to other content area or subjects remains to be investigated. Furthermore, we also discussed the possible influences of teachers; however, the findings are derived from a student-based survey. Further evidence of this finding and new findings can be obtained by conducting teacher-based observation surveys. Last, in exploring the cognitive activities that underlie lecture note-taking, we did not assume the existence of gender differences and therefore did not fully balance the male and female participants. However, previous studies have illustrated gender differences in note-taking activities (e.g., Reddington et al., 2015). Therefore, caution may be needed in the interpretation of the framework proposed.

This study has several implications for educational practice. First, the present study pointed out the necessity to consider the cognitive activities involved in lecture note-taking. Future work is expected on new measures based on the proposed theoretical framework that gauge the cognitive activity of lecture note-taking. Meanwhile, whether the deep lecture note-taking effectively promotes learning requires empirical evidence. On the other hand, note-taking instruction may prompt students to take more notes; however, this does not necessarily have a positive effect on helping students understand the lecture. This study reveals that instructions promoting deep lecture note-taking should be emphasized. For example, the metacognitive function of lecture note-taking should be exploited more. In addition, encouraging students to utilize resources, such as textbooks for note-taking might be effective. These have important implications for reconsidering the need for note-taking instructions and the exploration of effective note-taking instruction that takes into account the cognitive activities of note-taking.

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Tokyo/Office for Life Science Research Ethics and Safety. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants.

ML conceived the present idea, carried out the implementation, performed data analysis, and took the lead in writing the manuscript. ML and YU contributed to the study design. Both authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and manuscript.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.