As a folk adage said in china, “the palest ink is better than the best memory” is becoming a history. The electronic note-taking is becoming more and more popular and the traditional note-taking is being abandoned. Actually, electronic note-taking and traditional note-taking may differ in their encoding function, external-storage function and the combination of encoding function and storage function, and so on. The encoding function of the note-taking strategy determines its immediate learning effects. According the “translation hypothesis”, as using traditional note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials is better than that on auditory materials. As using traditional note-taking, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. So, writing down what you hear will produce more translations from phonological processing to orthographic processing. In English study, there is little difference between the processing translation modes of traditional note-taking and electronic note-taking in the face of the same materials. But as typing Chinese electronic notes, which using Pinyin keyboarding, the phonological processing is mainly activated. While as handwriting Chines traditional notes, the orthographic processing is mainly activated. It means as using Chinese electronic note-taking, the immediate learning effects on visual materials may be worse than it on auditory materials. The combination of encoding function and storage function determines the delayed learning effects of the note-taking strategy. In order to study the “translation hypothesis”, we asked participants to verbatim transcription the materials. In this case, the Chinese electronic note-taking have same storage function on the visual and auditory materials. So, it is very important whether the immediate learning effects can be maintained well before review. The cognitive load generated during processing translate is mainly intrinsic cognitive load. The intrinsic cognitive load has limited help for learners to store information in their long-term memory. It means if the review is not timely, the immediate learning effects will not be maintained well. At this time, the role of review in visual group and auditory group may be the same. Based on the “translation hypothesis”, we took 104 college students as the participants, systematically discussed the influence of material’s presentation mode, review or not and test time on the learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking to test above propositions. The results supported our hypotheses. The results were as following: (1) the immediate learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking on visual materials were worse than it on auditory materials; (2) if review is not allowed, there was no significant differences between visual group and auditory group in the delayed learning effects of Chinese electronic note-taking; (3) there was no significant differences between visual group and auditory group in review effects. The present study extends our understanding of the “translation hypothesis” of note-taking. It's a new embodiment of the “translation hypothesis” in Chinese electronic note-taking. In conclusion, the study shows that using Chinese electronic note-taking when reading is better than using it when listen to lectures or reports. This advantage is mainly reflected in the immediate learning effects. But to use this advantage in review, the review must be in time.