做筆記的編碼與外部儲存功能，使得透過做筆記來學習的學生能獲得好的學業成就，然而並非所有做筆記的學生的學習表現都相近，即使學業成績相近也可能有截然不同的做筆記歷程。本研究將調查做筆記信念，與了解高中生的做筆記歷程，並探討做筆記信念和先備知識對做筆記歷程的影響。

研究工具分別是：先備知識測驗、做筆記信念問卷、做筆記材料與事後訪談。研究對象是桃園地區的80位高二生，測得學生的學科先備知識與做筆記信念後，篩選出32人接著進行做筆記操作與做筆記歷程訪談，其中分組方式依信念分成高、低兩組各16人，同時也依先備知識分成高、低兩組各16人。

研究結果顯示：(1)高中生做筆記信念問卷的平均值為中間偏高，表示高中生普遍有不錯的做筆記信念。(2)高中生大多會使用瀏覽與畫線策略，並認為筆記應精簡且包含重點、需具備結構，且使用圖形組織多是為了建立概念連結。(3)先備知識會影響建立圖形組織與是否寫進筆記的原因。高先備知識組做圖形組織以建立概念連結的次數顯著高於低先備知識組，且選擇寫進筆記原因多元，包含重點、形成連貫與幫助理解等原因。(4)做筆記信念會影響建立圖形組織與是否寫進筆記的原因。高信念與低信念者建構圖形組織的原因都以建立概念連結最多；在寫筆記的原因方面，高信念組與高先備知識組同樣多元，而低信念組則傾向只記下重點。

The encoding and external storage functions of note-taking help students behave well in academic performance. However, not all the students who take notes have similar academic performance. Even if they have similar academic performance, they may have different notes. As a result, the purpose of this study was to investigate high school students' note-taking beliefs, their note-taking process, and explore the influence of note-taking beliefs and prior knowledge on the note-taking process.

This study adopted a note-taking beliefs investigation, a biology prior knowledge test, an expository texts note-taking, and a note-taking process interview. Participants of this study involved 80 senior high school students in Taoyuan. At first, they took note-taking beliefs investigation and biology prior knowledge test. And then, we chose 32 students among them and separated them into high and low group based on their note-taking beliefs and prior knowledge respectively. We made these groups of students take notes and take note-taking interviews.

The results of the study showed that (1) The average of senior high school students' note-taking beliefs was 2.70, indicating that they generally had higher beliefs in taking notes. (2) Before taking notes, most of the senior high school students browsed the texts and highlighted the main ideas. Also, they thought that the notes should include main ideas, a good structure, and graphic organizations which establish relationships between concepts. (3) The prior knowledge would affect the reasons why students built the graphic organizations and decided what to write. The high prior knowledge group built graphic organizations to establish relationships between concepts significantly more frequently than the low prior knowledge group. Furthermore, the high prior knowledge group also noted information with more multiple reasons, including emphasis, forming coherence, and helping understanding. (4) Note-taking beliefs would affect the reasons why they built the graphic organizations and decided what to write. The reason why most of the high and low note-taking beliefs group built the graphic organization is to establish relationships between concepts. Moreover, the high note-taking beliefs group also noted information with more multiple reasons, while most of the low note-taking beliefs group tends to record the note by emphasis mainly.

朱宥勳（2018）。大考中心玩真的——2018年學測國文科考題的趨勢與意義。鳴人堂。取自https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/7344/2957508
林靖于（2018）。高一歷史「做筆記」教學策略之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
南一書局（黃啟穎等）（2018）。普通高級中學選修生物：三下。臺南市：南一書局。
張馨文（2009）。鐮型血球貧血症。科學Online：高瞻自然科學教學資源平台。取自http://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=1145
許雅芬（2012）。電子故事書結合做筆記策略對國小學生閱讀態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，台北市。
陳品華（2013）。大學生課堂筆記策略教學方案之成效。教育研究集刊，59(1)，73-112。
曾昭悌（2013）。做筆記教學對國中生數學態度與數學成就之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，台南市。
辜玉旻（2007）。提升學童科學文章的閱讀理解：運用附加問題與做筆記策略（編號：NSC 95-2511-S-008-001-）。台北市：國科會科教處。
辜玉旻（2017）。搭配圖形組織與做筆記策略提升國中生對於說明式文章結構的覺知與閱讀理解能力。行政院科技部專題研究計畫（編號：MOST 105-2410-H-008-051-MY3），未出版。台北市：科技部。
辜玉旻、張菀真（2017）。做筆記策略教學。載於柯華葳（主編），閱讀理解策略教學（頁157-174）。台北市：教育部國民及學前教育署。
楊芬香（2007）。國小高年級國語課程實施聆聽策略教學之行動研究-以概念構圖做筆記為教學主要模式（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，台中市。
蔡亞樺（2018）。學測自然科題目長又多 考生：寫不完。自由時報。取自http://iservice.ltn.com.tw/2018/specials/exam/news.php?rno=1&type=breakingnews&no=2324600
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 31-46.
Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 368-372.
Anderson, J. R. (1983a). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261-295.
Anderson, J. R. (1983b). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp.415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baldwin, R. S., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 497-504.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. In D. F. Marks, M. Murray, B. Evans, & C. Willig (Eds.), The health psychology reader (pp. 94-106). Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.
Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181-192.
Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note‐taking strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 786-818.
Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Note-taking and passage style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 242–250.
Caillies, S., Denhière, G., & Kintsch, W. (2002). The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: Evidence from primed recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 267-286.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.
Chang, W. C., & Ku, Y. M. (2015). The effects of note-taking skills instruction on elementary students’ reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 278-291.
Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8-14.
Hidi, S., & Klaiman, R. (1983). Notetaking by experts and novices: An attempt to identify teachable strategies. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(4), 377-395.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23-32.
Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(1), 33-44.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1987). Qualitative aspects of notetaking and their relationship with information-processing ability and academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14(3), 110-117.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note‐taking/‐reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459-477.
Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Optimising the use of note‐taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 619-635.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 30-42.
McCormick, S., & Zutell, J. (2015). Instructing students who have literacy problems (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934-956.
Moorf, D. W., & Readence, J. F. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228-242.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514-522.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 34-38.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291-312.
Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Dubois, N. F., & Devaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept application. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67(1), 17-31.
Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 71-82.
Scott, D. B. (2011). Explicit instruction on rhetorical patterns and student-constructed graphic organizers: The impact on sixth-grade students' comprehension of social studies text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Scott, D. B., & Dreher, M. J. (2016). Student thinking processes while constructing graphic representations of textbook content: What insights do think-alouds provide? Reading Psychology, 37(2), 286-317.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91-100.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1-20.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796.
van Beek, J. A., De Jong, F. P. C. M., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Teacher practice in secondary vocational education: Between teacher-regulated activities of student learning and student self-regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 1-9.
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students' theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 323-338.
Wetzels, S. A., Kester, L., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Broers, N. J. (2011). The influence of prior knowledge on the retrieval‐directed function of note taking in prior knowledge activation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 274-291.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children's motivations for reading: An initial study. Reading Research Report No. 34.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420-432.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.