CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Innovations in Educational MethodsDisability Education and EmploymentVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Pause Procedure and/or an Outline: Effect on Immediate Free Recall and Lecture Notes Taken by College Students with Learning Disabilities

Ruhl, Kathy L., Suritsky, Sharon·1995·Learning Disability Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/1511361
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The increasing number of college students with learning disabilities (C/LD) requires development of empirically validated strategies for use by faculty who lecture these students. The effects of a pausing procedure (three 2-minute pauses spaced at logical intervals during a videotaped lecture) and a lecture outline on the notetaking performance of C/LD were investigated. The completeness of students' notes and their immediate free recall of lecture ideas were compared for lecture conditions incorporating the pause procedure, a lecture outline, and a combination of both procedures. Results indicated that the pause procedure alone was most effective for enhancing students' immediate recall of lecture ideas and completeness of recorded notes. Implications are discussed in terms of future research on effective lecturing techniques for college students with learning disabilities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1511361

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Anderson T.H., 1986, The value of taking notes (Reading Education Report No. 374)
  2. Bretzing B., 1987, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 359
  3. Di Vesta F.J., 1972, Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 321
  4. Gajar A.H., 1982, Reading Improvement, 19, 282
  5. Hartley J., 1983, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 36, 13
  6. Hartley J., 1974, Universities Quarterly, 28, 225
  7. Kiewra K.A., 1984, Human Learning, 3, 273
  8. Matthews P.R., 1987, Learning Disability Focus, 3, 46
  9. Palmatier R.A., 1974, Journal of Reading, 18, 215
  10. Suritsky S.K., 1992, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 3

Cited by

See all 61

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ruhl, K. L., & Suritsky, S.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Wesley Highland School, Pittsburgh, PA
Venue
Learning Disability Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1995-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
2-11
ISSN
  • 0731-9487 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-376X
DOI
10.2307/1511361
OpenAlex
W2087083519
Cited by
61
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Learning Disability Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Educational Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
learning disabilities, university students, lecture notes, note-taking, lecture outlines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review