Advertisement

How Much Mightier Is the Pen than the Keyboard for Note-Taking? A Replication and Extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014)

  • Kayla MoreheadEmail author
  • John Dunlosky
  • Katherine A. Rawson
REPLICATION

Abstract

Many students use laptops to take notes in classes, but does using them impact later test performance? In a high-profile investigation comparing note-taking writing on paper versus typing on a laptop keyboard, Mueller and Oppenheimer (Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168, 2014) concluded that taking notes by longhand is superior. We conducted a direct replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) and extended their work by including groups who took notes using eWriters and who did not take notes. Some trends suggested longhand superiority; however, performance did not consistently differ between any groups (experiments 1 and 2), including a group who did not take notes (experiment 2). Group differences were further decreased after students studied their notes (experiment 2). A meta-analysis (combining direct replications) of test performance revealed small (nonsignificant) effects favoring longhand. Based on the present outcomes and other available evidence, concluding which method is superior for improving the functions of note-taking seems premature.

Keywords

Note-taking Laptop Longhand eWriter Encoding Storage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors have no financial or non-financial interest in the materials discussed in this manuscript. Many thanks to Asad Khan, Annette Kratcoski, Duane Marhefka, Erica Montbach, and Todd Packer for support and encouragement with this project.

Funding Information

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, STTR Phase II: Digital e-Writer for the Classroom, Grant Number 413328.

References

  1. Barrett, M. E., Swan, A. B., Mamikonian, A., Ghajoyan, I., Kramarova, O., & Youmans, R. J. (2014). Technology in note taking and assessment: the effects of congruence on student performance. International Journal of Instruction, 7, 49–58.Google Scholar
  2. Blasiman, R., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behavior. Memory, 25, 784–792.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614529796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299–309.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.67.6.900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. S. (2017). The impact of computer usage on academic performance: evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military Academy. Economics of Education Review, 56, 118–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 8–14.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Francis, G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 975–991.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glass, A. L., & Kang, M. (2018). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology. 1–14. On-line first publication.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1489046.
  11. Gurung, R. A. (2005). How do students really study (and does it matter)? Education, 39, 323–340.Google Scholar
  12. James, K. H. (2017). The importance of handwriting experience on the development of the literate brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 502–508.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417709821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1, 32–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. James, K. H., & Gauthier, I. (2006). Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory-motor brain network. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2937–2949.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 621–629.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students’ note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90034-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: the encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01326640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: a distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9458-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Blasiman, R., & Hollis, R. B. (2019). Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.156969.
  24. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2012). An expert performance approach to the study of individual differences in self-regulated learning activities in upper-level college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 597–609.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215–218. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40009958. Accessed 12 April 2016.
  27. Patterson, R. W., & Patterson, R. M. (2017). Computers and productivity: evidence from laptop use in the college classroom. Economics of Education Review, 57, 66–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peverly, S. T., & Sumowski, J. F. (2012). What variables predict quality of text notes and are text notes related to performance on different types of tests? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 104–117.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peverly, S. T., & Wolf, A. D. (2019). Note-taking. To appear in J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 320–355). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peverly, S. T., Sumowski, J. F., & Garner, J. (2007). Skill in lecture note-taking: what predicts? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 167–180.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reddington, L. A., Peverly, S. T., & Block, C. J. (2015). An examination of some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender differences in lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1155–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9566-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sibley, C. G. (2008). Utilities for examining simple meta-analytic avergages [computer software]. Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  38. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replications. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 9, 76–80.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): a proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The testing effect and the retention interval. Experimental Psychology, 56, 252–257.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vinci-Booher, S., James, T. W., & James, K. H. (2016). Visual-motor functional connectivity in preschool children emerges after handwriting experience. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5, 107–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations