Article published In: Learning and Teaching L2 Writing:
Guest-edited by Daphne van Weijen, Elke Van Steendam and Gert Rijlaarsdam
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156] 2008
► pp. 31–50
Notetaking and Writing from Hypertexts in L1 and L2
Cognitive Effort and Language Procedures
Published online: 1 January 2008
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034419
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034419
Abstract
This study analyzes the cognitive effort and linguistic procedures of sixty students using information taken from an experimental website in L1 (French) and in L2 (English). The students navigated on the website and took notes on paper or with a word processor. A triple-task paradigm was used to estimate the cognitive load of reading, notetaking, and writing processes in L2. The students had to perform two additional tasks while a main task (notetaking, for example) was being carried out. They had to react as fast as possible to sound signals sent out at random intervals. They also had to identify what they were doing at the time the sound signal was heard (reading, notetaking, or writing). The study focuses on the way the students managed their cognitive resources while exploring the website, selecting and writing down the ideas they considered useful, and reconstructing them later when producing their own text. Surprisingly, no difference in cognitive load was observed between L1 and L2. By relying almost exclusively on the copy and paste functions to retrieve information from the website, the participants using a word processor in L2 succeeded in making reading a less costly activity, and they performed similarly to the notetakers in L1. The students’ difficulties in L2 became apparent only in the paper condition. The strategies and linguistic procedures of the students are described and related to the ways teachers can approach the new dimensions of notetaking and writing with a computer.
References (25)
Barbier, M.-L. (2006). Coût de l’exploration d’un site web en L2? [cognitive load of web exploration in L2]. In A. Piolat (Ed.). Lire, écrire, communiquer et apprendre avec Internet [Reading, writing, communicating and learning with Internet] (pp. 151–172). Marseille: Editions Solal.
Barbier, M.-L., Faraco, M., Piolat, A., & Branca, S. (2004). Prise de notes et procédés de condensation en français L2 par des étudiants anglais, espagnols et japonais [Note-taking and abbreviation procedures in French L2 by English, Spanish, and Japanese students]. In N. Andrieux-Reix, S. Branca, & C. Puech (Eds.). Ecriture abrégées (notes, notules, messages, codes...). L’abréviation entre pratiques spontanées, codifications, modernité et histoire [Abbreviatory writing] (pp.143–161). Gap: Editions Orphys.
Barbier, M.-L., & Piolat, A. (2005). L1 and L2 cognitive effort of notetaking and writing. In L. Alla, & B. Schneuwly (Eds.). Proceedings at the SIG Writing Conference 2004 [CD-ROM]. Geneva: Switzerland.
Barbier, M.-L., Piolat, A., & Roussey, J.Y. (1998). Effet du traitement de texte et des correcteurs sur la maîtrise de l’orthographe et de la grammaire en langue seconde [Effect of the word processor and the spelling and grammar checkers in second language]. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 1221, 83–98.
Barbier, M.-L., Piolat, A., Roussey, J-Y., & Olive, T. (2006). Notetaking in second language: Language procedures and self-evaluation of the difficulties. Current Psychology Letters. Brain, Behavior and Cognition, 20(3). [URL]]
Blondel, F.M., Le Touzé, J.C., & Tarizzo, M. (2002). ARI: un assistant logiciel pour accompagner la formation à la recherche d’informations [ARI: a software to assist training in search of information]. In Frasson, C., & Pecuchet, J.P. (Eds.), Actes du Colloque TICE2002, INSA, Lyon, November 2002 , pp.167–174.
Chaudron, C., Loschky, L., & Cook, J. (1994). Second language listening comprehension and lecture note-taking. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp.75–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clerehan, R. (1995). Taking it down: notetaking practices of L1 and L2 students, English for specific purposes, 14(2), 137–157.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.O. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.
Faraco, M., Barbier, M.-L., & Piolat, A. (2002). A comparison between L1 and L2 notetaking by undergraduate students. In S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Vol. Eds.), & G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 111. New Directions in Research on L2 Writing (pp.145–167). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gérouit, C., Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., & Barbier, M.-L. (2001). Coût attentionnel de la recherche d’informations par des adultes sur hypertexte et sur document papier [Cognitive load of information research by adults on hypertext and on paper document]. In M. Mojahid & J. Virbel (Eds.), Actes du 4° Colloque International sur le Document Electronique (pp.201–215). Paris: Europia Production.
Titsworth, B.S., & Kiewra, K.A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note-taking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 291, 447–461.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 931, 103–128.
Olive, T., Kellogg, R.T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the processes of writing: Why and How? In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp.31–59). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O., & Ziegler, J.C. (1999). SCRIPTKELL: a tool for measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 113–121.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg R.T. (2005). Cognitive effort of notetaking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 191, 291–312.
Piolat, A., Barbier, M.-L., & Roussey, J.Y. (2008). Fluency and cognitive effort during first- and second-language note-taking and writing by undergraduate students. European psychologist, 13(2), 114–125.
Raby, F. (2005). A User-Centred Ergonomic Approach to CALL Research. In J. Elgert. G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp.179–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rouet, J.F. (2003). La compréhension des documents électroniques [Understanding on electronic documents]. In Gaonac’h, D. & Fayol, M. (Eds.), Aider les élèves à comprendre [Help learners to understand]. Paris: Hachette Education.
Desmette, D., Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M.A., & Van der Linden, M. (1995). Adaptation en langue française du « Reading Span Test » de Daneman et Carpenter (1980) [French adaptation of the « Reading Span test » of Daneman et Carpenter (1980)]. L’Année Psychologique, 951, 459–482.
Friedman, N., & Miyake, A. (2005). Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 371, 581–590.
Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 151, 1–20.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Olive, Thierry & Marie-Laure Barbier
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.